Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Green Knight" data-source="post: 181095" data-attributes="member: 2723">Feel free to share your own personal theories. Here're my own 2 theories.  1) People who think high-level play is munchkin have only played it as one-off games. Meaning that they made already high-level characters and that's how they experienced high-level play. They didn't actually start that character from 1st-level, but rather picked it up from 12th, 15th, or whatever level.  Now, I can see why people would consider it munchkin from this type of game. For instance, I played a 17th level game a couple weeks ago, and my Monk was a MADMAN! Only matched by the Fighter with the Improved Critical Feat and his Keen Vorpal Scimitar!  But consider, first, that the magic items selected for the characters weren't found in-game. They were selected. When you're advancing up levels, often times you don't have the opportunity to maximize your characters killing potential the way you can when you're making an already high-level character. Oftentimes your character just takes what he can get. So while that Fighter had a Keen Vorpal Scimitar, he might not have had it had he played to 17th level from 1st level.  Second, it was a one-off game. The characters had nothing tying them down. Since all their money was spent on magic items, they had very little cash on hand. A 17th level character, however, who started at 1st-level, would have by that point things which tied him down. All his money wouldn't be put into just powerful magic items, but other assets. Maybe a keep, temple, or monastery. Had I played that Monk from 1st-level to 17th-level he might not have been anywhere near as powerful, as some of that money I put towards magic items might've gone to a monastery or something similar.  2) Bad DMing. Not necessarily, but some DM's just don't have an understanding of high-level play. Which is what's led to people believing that high-level play is inherently munchkin.  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. In short, there're DM's who run their high-level campaigns the way they do their low-level campaigns, with the same old dungeong-crawling schtick. Just with tougher monsters, dragons and beholders instead of orcs and goblins.  Problem is, when you run a monster of such magnitude as a dragon as if it were an orc, it looses its luster. Another problem with DM's who don't know how to handle high-level play. Orcs and their like have simple tactics, but dragons, beholders and their like have much more complicated tactics, due to their increased options. But some DM's don't take advantage of that. So when you kill the ill-played dragon, it becomes pedestrian, rather than the epic undertaking that slaying a dragon is supposed to be. Another reason why some people like low-level play. They prefer monsters like dragons to be the deadly threats that they're supposed to be, and even with the most inept DM playing it, a dragon will still wipe out a low-level party.  Anyway, those're my theories. Agree? Disagree? Have your own theory? Please feel free to add to the discussion.</blockquote>

Verification