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

[Green Knight]

Oh Sage Master, teach us!!!! (Bow, Bow, kneel, kneel)

Thanx for making all those assumptions.

Uh, did I or did I not say what I was saying was a THEORY? By it's very nature, a theory is an assumption. I never claimed to be making anything else but that. An assumption. A guess. Not to mention asking people for their OWN guesses. If you didn't want to read mine or anyone elses assumptions then you should've skipped this thread as it said in the title "I've got a theory", rather than posting in it and illustrating how much of an @ss you can be.

Anyway, I liked the post about 2E and how people skipped levels when they shouldn't have. That actually happened in a game I once played. Skipped all the way to 5th level before we realized we couldn't go up more than 1 level per game. Oops.

And to another poster, no offense. I just really like Lady Despina's Virtue. I don't mean it was run right in that there's no combat, but run right in that it's not just raiding the monster lair and looting it like at lower levels. Run right in that there's more depth to it.

Of course, the whole munchkin label probably does have a lot to do with players who don't want anything more complex then killing the monster and taking his treasure. Why I posted this thread, anyway. I'm enjoying the discussion, so far. Thanks a lot, folks!

 

[Kichwas]

First off a disclaimer: I've never played DnD beyond 7th level save for in cntxt's game where I briefly ran some of his high level NPCs and then made my own high level cleric before dropping out from a schedule conflict and joining his group's other game (which is the first game I've ever played beyond 3rd level in my 20 years of gaming).


So this is merely conjecture and theory.


I suspect a lot of the problem with levels is the change in tone. At least for me if I ever got a group up there I suspect I would end up a little lost as a DM and likewise as a player.

The themes and tone of a high level game are more than likeley going to be very different than those of a low level game.

Lets say as a DM I come up with a story arc for a campaign. Me and my players all get into it and set off on our game.

If we using a level free RPG like Fantasy Hero or Theatrix power escalation is minor or non existant and we could keep the tone of the game where it was for the duration of our little Soap Opera.

In a level based RPG though the system forces us into an upward path. As the PCs gain XP they get increasingly more powerful and the treats they started with are no longer of consequence. Without some skilled craftwork on both sides of the table it seems to me like things could easily break down.

In novels and TV dramas (not American style but 'anywhere but the USA' style) you tend to have one large story which develops over time from an initial conflict into a series of explorations of the characters and theme and ending in a climax that resolves the initial issues.

Many good RPG campaigns have this as well. But at level 15 the Orc tribe threatening home is no longer the same problem it was at level 1. At level 15 if you're not telling an entirely different story chances are your game is breaking apart.

If you are telling the same story you have to constantly figure out why and how the escalation on the other side of the conflict is happening and why the big powers over there didn't come in during Act I, Scene II and finish things off.

Maybe I'll see how it can work if and when I ever get there. But for now it seems like a level system and it's forced escalation almost prevents a consistant themed story. It almost forces logic to break down. Which can then destroy the 'sense of disbelief' for the DM and many players.

 

[hong]

What is wrong with munchkins? If they're in your game and making it less fun for you, then I can see a problem. But if somebody, somewhere, wants to play a game of D&D just to get powerful characters and do crazy things they never could in real life, what's the problem? Almost everyone starts out in RPGs as a munchkin. Some people develop different tastes, and some don't. If they are having fun, it isn't hurting me.

1 theory is that it's a "sophisticated gamer" thing.

 

[Numion]

I've got one munchkin in my group, and for me it's not a big problem. We all get good laughs when he asks munchkinny questions, to which all but the said person know the answer.

Like "Then if I'm medium-sized, can I wield two Gnome Hooked Hammers?"

It's great fun

 

[Darklone]

Munchkins... *sigh*

Huhm. In the only group where I am not the big great evil(DM), I play a multiclassed char. 5 classes. He can do a lot, but he's not sooo good at it. The others like to pull jokes on him, but everyone expects me to save the group now and then with a good idea. The DM is angry about this and never allows anything I propose if I cannot cite the rules. If I cite the rules, I am a ruleslawyer. If I manage to save the group, I am a powergamer (with half as much XPs as the "old" players in the group, I am "only" there for 3 years). So far for munchkinism.

Back to the topic: High level games ... IMHO they tend to evolve into stone-scissor-paper magic games if you don't put some emphasis on roleplaying. Some groups don't, so you got munchkinism.

 

[Heretic Apostate]

I've got a theory.

It could be demons.

Some dancing demons.

No, something isn't right there.

:snip:

I've watched that episode probably 20 times in the last week. It's great having it on tape.

Now, if I can only get someone to tape Dinotopia for me.

 

[Drakmar]

in a high level campaign i played in

the game was using Rolemaster Standard Rules.. with a few tweaks.. now.. I was by the end a 34th level Wizard (um.. not sure what how that would translate to D&D... ).. now at that level Terran did not run about hunting monsters.. usually any monsters that did come his way died in about 2 rnds.. either by his hand or one of his 30 bodyguards. (he was a wee bit paranoid).. now..at this power level what did he do?.. well.. he overthrew a king.. started his own kingdom on a barren island that he terraformed.. and basically completely changed the political landscape in his region.. (affecting an empire and a kingdom.. and now his new kingdom)... how did he do this? Not by his sheer power (which he did have.. but I worked my way up there from 1st level.. and which he used to terraform)..but by over the course of 26 years of game time making contacts and making himself a hero of the people.. so when the Kingdom of Jareth marched on his new Kingdom of Magic, he enlisted the aid of the Emperor of Samarkad and then with a speach to the armies that we facing off, he manage to get about 1/3rd (20,000) soldiers to defect..another 1/3rd to run away.. and the rest just dug in and waiting...while their king ran away..

It was fun.. the last game session involved Terran transforming himself into a Magedrake.. giving him imense power.. hower since that was his goal at first level it did seem.. appropriate...

now.. it may sound that I was powergaming.. or a munchkin.. and heck.. I did make Terran a Magical Prodigy...and he was extremely powerful as a Wizard.. but the true impact he had on the region was not because of his power as a mage.. but the repurcussions of his friendships and who he pissed off... (and usually destroyed or rendered... no longer a threat)

I should write up that game sometime.

my point is.. after all of that rambling.. is that yes.. at high level you are POWERFUL...yup.. nation destroying even.. but hey.. why fight a dragon (which he did) when you can overthrow governments and fight undead armies and become avatars of various Gods. The game involved a heck of a lot of RolePlaying.. evenwhen he died.. went to the afterlife.. and negotiated with the God of Magic to be brought back to life. At a price.

loved that game. I would soooooo like to see the lanscape in 500 yrs game time.

 

[Clint]

Sorry to jump in late.

Maybe it's just the way that most munchkins talk about their characters.

"I have an 19th level Anti-Paladin who just got Mass Death Strike!"
"I just got a new castle in the middle of the capital city, and it has fiendish evil gargoyles all over it!"
"My character stole the Unholy Avenger Sword from the Demon Lord and sold it for cash."
"My character won a fight with a demigod in two rounds!"

And to most people, that kind of description is a turn-off, regardless that the people in the game are having fun.

I think that it's simply that these descriptions can really only come out of high-level games. So a lot of people make an association that high-level -> munchkin.

 

[Simon Magalis]

.



I don't think munchkins could survive "The Return to the Tomb of Horrors"

I think the original ToH was designed exactly for the purpose of killing players who wanted to take every item in the dungeon. When my group was in the dungeon, we did fine because we were so paranoid that we refused to mess with anything.

 

[Psion]

What is wrong with munchkins? If they're in your game and making it less fun for you, then I can see a problem. But if somebody, somewhere, wants to play a game of D&D just to get powerful characters and do crazy things they never could in real life, what's the problem? Almost everyone starts out in RPGs as a munchkin. Some people develop different tastes, and some don't. If they are having fun, it isn't hurting me.

Maybe not directly. However, it can poison the player pool. Lets so someone hears about 3e, has been out of the game for a while, and wants to try it again, and starts up with a munchkin group. After realziing that said group plays a virtual arcade game, they quit and are convinced that "3e is for muchkins." They may quit RPGing entirely, or they may go onto other RPGs and become a d20 basher.

Also, there is a good chance that you might have to hammer together a group with some players who learned to play that way. Playing munchkin in a normal group is a recipe for disaster, or at the very least severe GM headaches.

Let me tell you a story about a potential player that got involved in my group recently. We'll call him Jerry since that's his name.

Jerry knew one of my players and asked to join. He had never played 3e. He wanted to play his old 2e characters (alarm bells! Player who only plays one characer!) His character was a member of a munched out 2e specialty priest class that was like the one in F&A for Tempus but more powerful. (Alarm 2: FR. Alarm 3: Self made classes.)

I had to explain to Jerry that my world was not FR in any way, and that the best we could do is to try to work up an equivalent concept in my game world. It was a tough fit, but eventually I worked up a prestige class that was a weaker version of his.

He still kept trying to use his old characters abilities. What's worse is that he was openly demanding of the other characters and had a superiority complex.

Eventually Jerry stopped coming (due to time factors, or so he said.) Since them, my group bloated to 7 or 8 players and I formally closed the game.

Recently, a player told me Jerry asked about getting back into the game. When he told Jerry the game was closed because we had too many players, Jerry didn't see that as a problem; he simply said that his (supposedly CG) character would assassinate other characters in the party to make room. My player explained that it didn't quite work that way.

See, I see what you are saying about "live and let live." But at the same time, I can't help but feel that Jerry "got in with the wrong crowd," and if his formative gaming experiences were with a group that knew the game was about the group experience and not about glorifying his muncky character, we would have had a competant player on our hands.