Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Rabid Dwarf <jjstoltenber@*******.EDU>
Subject: All Too Easy??
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 20:52:45 -0500
I've run into a little problem in my games, a few of my players
subscribe to this list so I will need to be a little vague so I don't
bruise egos.

What my problem is, is that my players , one or two of which are
munchkins, are handling the opposition rather easily. I know I could
simply put in larger nastier baddies but then the chances of having to
"fudge" a roll to keep a character alive increases and I do not like to
have to "fudge" rolls unless I have no other choice.

I know I may have to do that but I came up with two viable options
and I was curious to see how other GM's have handled this problem. My
first solution involved rather messily killing the munchkin characters and
hope that it will balance out my campaign.

My second option, and the one that I feel may work the best but
will probably penalize the wrong people, is to raise the base target numbers
in combat. Does anyone have any experience dealing with this?

This is a problem that I have been dealing with since I began playing
and running Shadowrun back in 1990 and prior. I would like to hear your
comments and if need be flames on my situation and possible solutions if
different than mine above.


Jon Stoltenberg
aka Rabid Dwarf

"If the answer is yes, Kick 'em! If the answer is no, Kick 'em! When in
doubt..... KICK 'EM!!!!"
Message no. 2
From: NightLife <habenir@*****.UC.EDU>
Subject: Re: All Too Easy??
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 00:19:53 -0500
> What my problem is, is that my players , one or two of which are
>munchkins, are handling the opposition rather easily. I know I could
>simply put in larger nastier baddies but then the chances of having to
>"fudge" a roll to keep a character alive increases and I do not like to
>have to "fudge" rolls unless I have no other choice.

The opposition they've walked all over espically if it's a group is likely
to habor ill feelings to say the least. So you are completly within the
bounds of fairness if you decide to wipe them off the face of the game
world. This espically holds true if they've done wet work themselves.

> I know I may have to do that but I came up with two viable options
>and I was curious to see how other GM's have handled this problem. My
>first solution involved rather messily killing the munchkin characters and
>hope that it will balance out my campaign.

Perhaps, merely talking to them and having them either start new pcs will
solve the problem.

> My second option, and the one that I feel may work the best but
>will probably penalize the wrong people, is to raise the base target numbers
>in combat. Does anyone have any experience dealing with this?

Nope.

> This is a problem that I have been dealing with since I began playing
>and running Shadowrun back in 1990 and prior. I would like to hear your
>comments and if need be flames on my situation and possible solutions if
>different than mine above.


If you're in the mood when you start a new campaign set limits of gear and
powers. To keep things from starting out too powerful and potitentially
upseting the balance. To give depth to the characters have them fill out the
fifty questions from Bull. You can either find them at Bull's page or my den
at Paolo's. After answering the questions have them write them up as a
biography. From a either a first person persective or a general overview as
in the third person. Making sure nothing to outlandish happen. I've seen to
many character who just happen to have graduated as the top of their class
or somethings just as bad a one character had himself being responsible for
creating diakote(sp?). Besure to outline the general feel for your campaign
for them so they have an idea as to what you expect from them. IE a moral
capaign, a medtech team, a ganger campaign etc... Then once the balance and
the theme is in place let players meet and let the good times roll.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nightlife Inc.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

"I am telling you nothing - merely asking you to remember that death come in
many shades. Some are harsh and infinitely painful to look upon; others can be
as peaceful and beautiful as the setting sun. I am an artist, and many colors
lie on upon my palette. Let me paint him a rainbow, and give you the means to
decide where it ends."

Erik from the book Phantom.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Document Classified
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Message no. 3
From: Mon goose <landsquid@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: All Too Easy??
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 00:19:42 PST
>I know I could simply put in larger nastier baddies but then the
chances of having to "fudge" a roll to keep a character alive increases
and I do not like to have to "fudge" rolls unless I have no other
choice.
>

IMO, you have to "fudge rolls" just as much for normal oppostion VS
normal characters.

Eliminating the munchkins won't make those things easier for you,
although it may create a more balanced group of PCs, meaning your
threats won't waste some chatacters while tickling others.

> I know I may have to do that but I came up with two viable
options and I was curious to see how other GM's have handled this
problem. My first solution involved rather messily killing the munchkin
characters and hope that it will balance out my campaign.
>

Maybe, unless the problem is the PLAYER. If the player is not the
problem, the character can probaly be tuned down a bit, by maybe
damaging some cyberware and destroying / loosing some equipment.
Adversity of that sort is a lot more fun for most good players than a
messy killing.

> My second option, and the one that I feel may work the best but
will probably penalize the wrong people, is to raise the base target
numbers in combat. Does anyone have any experience dealing with this?
>

No. We've use other house rules, but not that.
However, we are sometimes a little more rigerous about aplieng TN
penalties and figuring range than normal, and I'm always AMAZED how much
more often shots miss and melee does no damage in such cases. If you
DON'T apply penalties, combat can be WAY short. You can also
specifically use tactics that create such penalties (thermal smoke,
flash, cover, magic, etc). A lot of those penalties apply to
spellcasting, too. OTOH, such cases lead to whomever has the tactical
advantage really mopping up, or everybody else hiding- not a BAD thing,
though.
If your gonna raise combat TN's, a way to go might be add +2, but give a
BONUS for really good conditions, where no listed TN penalty could
possibly apply. Theres almost always about +2 worth of penalties that
could somehow aplly, if the opposition uses any common sense.



Mongoose/"Jack the sound barrier. Bring the noise." -Cyberdog
get sucked into -The Vortex- Chicago's shadowland BBS
http://www.concentric.net/~evamarie/srmain.htm

______________________________________________________
Join the legion of Bill Gates braindead zombie slaves:



______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 4
From: Adam J <fro@***.AB.CA>
Subject: Re: All Too Easy??
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 02:23:46 -0700
At 20:52 21/02/98 -0500, you wrote:

> I know I may have to do that but I came up with two viable options
>and I was curious to see how other GM's have handled this problem. My
>first solution involved rather messily killing the munchkin characters and
>hope that it will balance out my campaign.

This can work -- if you can justify the death, and if you make sure they
don't make similar characters the next time around. (Some real simple house
rules can solve this easy enough.)

> My second option, and the one that I feel may work the best but
>will probably penalize the wrong people, is to raise the base target numbers
>in combat. Does anyone have any experience dealing with this?

I've never considered doing this -- I don't think it would make much a
difference, aside from slow combat down. After all, the NPC's would still
be rolling against the new target numbers, so they would be just ras
ineffective.

Of course, I only had a couple of combat turns in my last 5 games or so... ;)

-Adam
-
http://shadowrun.home.ml.org \ TSS Productions \ The Shadowrun Supplemental
ShadowRN Assistant Fearless Leader \ AdamJ@******** \ fro@***.ab.ca
The Shadowrun Archive Co-Maintainer: http://www.interware.it/shadowrun
Message no. 5
From: The Vagabond <nomad74@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: All Too Easy??
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 03:13:37 PST
> What my problem is, is that my players , one or two of which
are
>munchkins, are handling the opposition rather easily. I know I could
>simply put in larger nastier baddies but then the chances of having to
>"fudge" a roll to keep a character alive increases and I do not like to
>have to "fudge" rolls unless I have no other choice.

This is commonly know as "Ugh... yer killin' all my guuuyys!"
syndrome- common through many RPGs(except maybe RoleMaster<G>).
No doubt you are going to have many ideas- most of which I'll
probably disagree with <g>. But seriously, the first thing I'd tell you
to do is let them kill and main until it's out of their system, but
since you say they've been doing this for going on 8 years, they
probably won't stop until someone pushes them in the right direction.
My second-best option would be just to sit down with your players and
tell them your opinions. If that doesn't work, you can scrag the
munchkins, but I can't gaurentee they won't be back. As long as you and
your PCs are having fun, let them go at it(I suppose). Or dump the in
Aztlan or Bug City and let them main to their heart's content.


-Vagabond <nomad74@*******.com><ICQ 4297972>
___________________________________________________________
"What, drawn, and talk of peace! I
hate the word
As I hate hell, all Montagues, and thee..."
-Shakespeare, Romeo & Juliet(Act I, scene I)


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 6
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: All Too Easy??
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 13:07:24 EST
In a message dated 98-02-22 11:45:46 EST, nomad74@*******.COM writes:

> This is commonly know as "Ugh... yer killin' all my guuuyys!"
> syndrome- common through many RPGs(except maybe RoleMaster<G>).

Okay, I've steered clear so far...but this is gonna get me...

> No doubt you are going to have many ideas- most of which I'll
> probably disagree with <g>. But seriously, the first thing I'd tell you
> to do is let them kill and main until it's out of their system, but
> since you say they've been doing this for going on 8 years, they
> probably won't stop until someone pushes them in the right direction.
> My second-best option would be just to sit down with your players and
> tell them your opinions. If that doesn't work, you can scrag the
> munchkins, but I can't gaurentee they won't be back. As long as you and
> your PCs are having fun, let them go at it(I suppose). Or dump the in
> Aztlan or Bug City and let them main to their heart's content.

I DO have experience in GMing for these people. I took the -EXTREME- route
and simply severed the game group(s) in major ways. Yes there were majorly
pissed off people and yes feelings got hurt on all (even mine own) sides.

But people that have this as "part of their nature" will never grow out of it,
sad to say. They will also never likely come to understand "allow everyone
else to have fun too" easily.

I could use the example of Binder, whom I've had for years. Occasionally I
step on toes, but I do my DAMNDEST to make certain I don't keep other's from
enjoying themselves. It's not easy, and I totally sympathize for the original
poster (whose name I've lost, I do apologize).

-K
Message no. 7
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: All Too Easy??
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 21:34:53 +0100
Rabid Dwarf said on 20:52/21 Feb 98...

> I know I may have to do that but I came up with two viable options
> and I was curious to see how other GM's have handled this problem. My
> first solution involved rather messily killing the munchkin characters and
> hope that it will balance out my campaign.

You could do that, but it could be counter-productive. The munchkins could
learn the lesson that they weren't tough enough, and their next characters
should be "better" so they'll survive longer... Then you're further from
home than you are now.

> My second option, and the one that I feel may work the best but
> will probably penalize the wrong people, is to raise the base target numbers
> in combat. Does anyone have any experience dealing with this?

This will penalize the wrong people, as you say. The non-munchkins will
get the shaft here while any true munchkin can quite easily defeat this
attempt to make things tougher for them. (Say you raise all TNs by 2; the
munchkins will do something like invest in 2 points more armor and a
revolutionary new and better smartlink that gives -4 instead of -2...)

Have you tried talking them out of their behavior? If you can explain with
some good reasons why you think they should change their attitudes, maybe
they will.

An alternative is to run adventures in which munchkins have either not
much to do (heavy on social interaction and low on combat), and/or
adventures where they can choose to kill everything they want in one of
the first encounters but thereby fail the mission; however if they choose
the other, non-violent option, which will allow them to complete the
adventure to satisfaction. Of course, they should only find out about this
at the end of a long, and thus "wasted" night of messing around trying to
complete the mission after all.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html - UIN5044116
This ain't no holiday, but it always turns out this way
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 8
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: All Too Easy??
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 12:52:41 -0500
At 03:13 AM 2/22/98 PST, you wrote:
>> What my problem is, is that my players , one or two of which
>are
>>munchkins, are handling the opposition rather easily. I know I could
>>simply put in larger nastier baddies but then the chances of having to
>>"fudge" a roll to keep a character alive increases and I do not like to
>>have to "fudge" rolls unless I have no other choice.
>
>
You know, instead of killing the PCs (which will likely only antagonize
your players), you can simply take away their toys. If they've got
mega-guns and milspec armor and LAVs and such, create a situation in which
they get taken away for some reason. If they have toys like that, you'd
have to think that not only will Lone Star or Knight Errant be watching
them very closely, the other corps and the government will be interested
also. They may decide it's a good idea to move. Which means no contacts;
which suddenly makes it hard to obtain fetishes, orichalcum, beta-cyber,
big guns, or even repairs to you or your gear. After a bad run or two, the
inability to repair cyber will suddenly create a major situation.

Not only would this sort of thing be great for role-playing, it will also
downgrade the munchkins without killing them.

An idea anyway.

Erik J.
Message no. 9
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: All Too Easy??
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 11:45:48 -0700
Erik Jameson wrote:
/
/ At 03:13 AM 2/22/98 PST, you wrote:
/ >> What my problem is, is that my players , one or two of which
/ >are
/ >>munchkins, are handling the opposition rather easily. I know I could
/ >>simply put in larger nastier baddies but then the chances of having to
/ >>"fudge" a roll to keep a character alive increases and I do not like
to
/ >>have to "fudge" rolls unless I have no other choice.
/ >
/ You know, instead of killing the PCs (which will likely only antagonize
/ your players), you can simply take away their toys.

And make an adventure out of it.

The PCs show up to meet a Johnson. While (in the back room of the
bar) the Johnson is telling them about their mission an odorless,
skin penetrating, knock out gas is filling the room. (Or whatever
you need to knock out the PCs.)

The PCs wake up in a warehouse, armed only with pistols, and a dead
guy (who's been shot repeatedly with the pistols). And, *any* toys
they had are gone. They've been framed of course. Lone Star sirens
sound in the distance. Lone Star also gets to the character's
appartments before they do and confiscate everything.

Or, they wake up in prison without anything and inhibitors on their
cyberware. An old enemy is taking revenge on the PCs.

If the players take it with stride and roleplay their way out then
this is a nice way of restarting the campaign and recovering from
early GMing mistakes (giving them those toys).

If the players bitch and moan, then they're confirmed munchkins.
Tell them they can either play or walk. This is kinda sneaky on the
GM's part because you aren't telling them to leave, the choice up to
them.

-David

ShadowRN GridSec: Enforcer Division
--
"Laugh and grow strong."
- St. Ignatius of Loyola
--
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 10
From: Matthias Kerzel <MKerzel@***.COM>
Subject: Re: All Too Easy??
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 15:11:37 EST
On Sun, 22 Feb 1998 21:34:53 +0100 Gurth wrote:

<lots of stuff about munchkins sniped>

>Have you tried talking them out of their behavior? If you can explain with
>some good reasons why you think they should change their attitudes, maybe
>they will.

>An alternative is to run adventures in which munchkins have either not
>much to do (heavy on social interaction and low on combat), and/or
>adventures where they can choose to kill everything they want in one of
>the first encounters but thereby fail the mission; however if they choose
>the other, non-violent option, which will allow them to complete the
>adventure to satisfaction. Of course, they should only find out about this
>at the end of a long, and thus "wasted" night of messing around trying to
>complete the mission after all.

If this all doesn't work, why not go a step further:

If someone wants to play a nearly incredible combat-monster that never
fails a test, show him, how boring this is.

Don't let him roll any dice. In combat, just say: "With all your warez
it is impossible that you miss and there is no need for a damage test - the
guy is dead. Wand you second shoot? Ok another one is dead." Don't
attack him anymore: "Why should the guy shoot you, he saw that his pal
with the assaultrifle could do nothing against you."

After a very short time the game will become very, very boring for the
munchkin. While the other players are having fun, the munchkin will face
no risk, no thrill and no success (no matter what he does, he is always
successful, so why should he be proud that his char survived a hard
battle).

After you have done this for a while (not too long, even munchkins are
[super]human beings) ask him again if he wants to continue this or if he
wants some thrill too (and maybe you can convince him this way to drop
the bullet-barrier 59 that protects him).

Don't get me wrong, thrill is definitively not everything, but I think it is
very important, especially in the cyberpunk genre. You can have really
big fun with personal relationships and other private thinks but I guess
a real munchkin would again rely on his high stats rather then on
roleplaying: "But he *must* like me, I have charisma 17 plus 4 extra dice."

This tactic bears some risks. Make shure the other players recognise that
you are doing this in order to fool a munchkin otherwise they might get
the idea that you favour this player and his stile of roleplaying.

And if you succeed and want to sound like a wise man [or a real jerk] say
something like: "Be careful with your wishes - they might become true." And
be sure to remove your glasses if you wear some because someone might
want to hit you... <I couldn't help putting this quote somewhere in this
post.>

And if everything goes wrong and the players likes it when he never fails and
the other players even join and everybody is having real much fun, then you
have found a very alternative RPG style but a least you have fun. And that is
why I play RPGs: To have fun, the whole fun and nothing but fun.

P.S: The stats that are used in this text are exaggerated in order to show
munchkinism, please no discussion if one can get charisma 17. :)

- Matthias
Message no. 11
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: All Too Easy??
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 20:17:37 EST
In a message dated 98-02-23 13:47:09 EST, dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG writes:

> If the players take it with stride and roleplay their way out then
> this is a nice way of restarting the campaign and recovering from
> early GMing mistakes (giving them those toys).

Actually, Dave, no it's not. It is a question of maturity of the player(s) in
question. toys only define the limit of the "boys".

> If the players bitch and moan, then they're confirmed munchkins.
> Tell them they can either play or walk. This is kinda sneaky on the
> GM's part because you aren't telling them to leave, the choice up to
> them.

OR, the GM has made mistake #4 and failed to take the responsibility upon
him/herself as well.
-K
Message no. 12
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: All Too Easy??
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 18:52:14 -0700
J. Keith Henry wrote:
/
/ In a message dated 98-02-23 13:47:09 EST, dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG writes:
/
/ > If the players take it with stride and roleplay their way out then
/ > this is a nice way of restarting the campaign and recovering from
/ > early GMing mistakes (giving them those toys).
/
/ Actually, Dave, no it's not. It is a question of maturity of the
player(s) in / question. toys only define the limit of the "boys".

You lost me. One of the points of such an adventure would be to weed
out the munchkin. It's a clear attempt by the GM to re-set his
campaign. It's also a good adventure for the players to use their
wits.

/ > If the players bitch and moan, then they're confirmed munchkins.
/ > Tell them they can either play or walk. This is kinda sneaky on the
/ > GM's part because you aren't telling them to leave, the choice up to
/ > them.
/
/ OR, the GM has made mistake #4 and failed to take the responsibility upon
/ him/herself as well.

Again, you lost me. Keith, I respect the heck out of you, but from time
to time you respond to something you disagree with (I think) with a single
sentance that doesn't explain why you disagree. No offense.

Dealing with Munchkinism on the one hand is pretty straight forward.
Tell the person that you aren't going to put up with it and that if
he wants to play in your game that he'd better change his ways.

On the other hand, there's usually a friendship involved that can
play merry hell with the situation. In the instance of my first
munchkin encounter the twit was married to one of my best friends. I
didn't want to come down on him for fear of alienating a friend. I
felt it was a lose/lose situation at the time. If I told him to piss
off, I'd lose friend. If I put up with it, I lost credibility with
my other friends. In the end she figured it out and withdrew from
the game, taking her husband with him. I can either ascribe that to
her being honorable, or me being a jackass. (Whoa, I'm ranting
again.)

Anyway, we can stand back and tell others how they *should* be
dealing with the situation, but we don't have to deal with any
consequences. If the original poster has a situation with joe blow
off the street he can deal with it in pretty short order. If it's a
friend, or a friend of a friend, it can get more complicated.

BTW, FWIW, if I had it to do all over again, I'd sit down with him
and lay it out on the table. He'd probably leave and so would his
wife, but she'd probably still be speaking to me.

-David
--
"Laugh and grow strong."
- St. Ignatius of Loyola
--
ShadowRN GridSec: Enforcer Division
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 13
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: All Too Easy??
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 21:15:39 EST
In a message dated 98-02-23 20:52:09 EST, dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG writes:

> You lost me. One of the points of such an adventure would be to weed
> out the munchkin. It's a clear attempt by the GM to re-set his
> campaign. It's also a good adventure for the players to use their
> wits.

Sorry, not feeling totally good right now. What I was trying to say is
something similar to what Rune said in another posting. By changing the
level of power or how pointing out how quickly it is for the "GM to get us
all", the player is likely to come back with something far more powerful or at
least more "loophole secure" so the GM can't get to him.

I agree it would be an excellent adventure idea though. We've done similar
stuff, especially when we started changing the game timelines over here. That
was fun, winding up in a Denver Alleyway naked, "Raven" had his sword (bonded)
and "Binder" had his "Hat" (but the spatial storage had been lost
somewhere)
made for lots of things fun and exciting.

Especially when those damnedable kids got involved...

> / OR, the GM has made mistake #4 and failed to take the responsibility upon
> / him/herself as well.
>
> Again, you lost me. Keith, I respect the heck out of you, but from time
> to time you respond to something you disagree with (I think) with a single
> sentance that doesn't explain why you disagree. No offense.


Again, I am sorry. Think of it this way. We (as GM's) "teach" the players
what is and is not acceptable. In so doing we create a "precendant", one that
may become quite difficult to "undo" at a later date. Sure, we can change the
game level, game power, characters involved, and so on ad nauseum (which is
exactly how I feel at the moment), but we cannot change what the players have
come to believe is the established "status quo" of game mechanics.

> Dealing with Munchkinism on the one hand is pretty straight forward.
> Tell the person that you aren't going to put up with it and that if
> he wants to play in your game that he'd better change his ways.

We've done that too cheaters, Munchkins, that's an entirely different saga of
tales.

> On the other hand, there's usually a friendship involved that can
> play merry hell with the situation. In the instance of my first
> munchkin encounter the twit was married to one of my best friends. I
> didn't want to come down on him for fear of alienating a friend. I
> felt it was a lose/lose situation at the time. If I told him to piss
> off, I'd lose friend. If I put up with it, I lost credibility with
> my other friends. In the end she figured it out and withdrew from
> the game, taking her husband with him. I can either ascribe that to
> her being honorable, or me being a jackass. (Whoa, I'm ranting
> again.)

No, if you are ranting, you are venting, and from the sounds of that story,
maybe you still need too from time to time. Pains of the Conscientious. We
all have them -IF- we admit to having one.

> Anyway, we can stand back and tell others how they *should* be
> dealing with the situation, but we don't have to deal with any
> consequences. If the original poster has a situation with joe blow
> off the street he can deal with it in pretty short order. If it's a
> friend, or a friend of a friend, it can get more complicated.

Complete agreement here.

> BTW, FWIW, if I had it to do all over again, I'd sit down with him
> and lay it out on the table. He'd probably leave and so would his
> wife, but she'd probably still be speaking to me.

Do you not just absolutely hate hindsight and it's clarity???

-K
Message no. 14
From: James Lindsay <jlindsay@******.CA>
Subject: Re: All Too Easy??
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 06:38:07 GMT
On Mon, 23 Feb 1998 15:11:37 EST, Matthias Kerzel wrote:

> If this all doesn't work, why not go a step further:
>
> If someone wants to play a nearly incredible combat-monster that never
> fails a test, show him, how boring this is.
>
> Don't let him roll any dice. In combat, just say: "With all your warez
> it is impossible that you miss and there is no need for a damage test - the
> guy is dead. Wand you second shoot? Ok another one is dead." Don't
> attack him anymore: "Why should the guy shoot you, he saw that his pal
> with the assaultrifle could do nothing against you."

This is good advice. I know of a few players that *insist* they be allowed
to continue re-rolling as per the "rule of six". In our campaign, a
natural 18 counts as a critical success, granting one additional success (a
natural 24 would grant two additional successes, 30 would grant three, and
so on). And even without this house rule, some of our players make it a
point to see how high they can roll (eg: "You need two successes, target
numbers of 4. What did you roll?" "I got a 3, a 5, and a 6... 12...
18!... holy cr*p!... a 23!!! I *really* succeeded!" "Yeah, whatever...").

Munchkins love to roll dice almost as much as they like building
super-characters: take away the dice and...

> After a very short time the game will become very, very boring for the
> munchkin. While the other players are having fun, the munchkin will face
> no risk, no thrill and no success (no matter what he does, he is always
> successful, so why should he be proud that his char survived a hard
> battle).

I fear the munchkin that this technique *doesn't* affect...





James W. Lindsay Vancouver, British Columbia
"http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero";
ICQ: 7521644 (Sharkey)

Mano au mano, the "Professor"
would kick MacGyver's ass.
Message no. 15
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: All Too Easy??
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 11:55:06 -0700
J. Keith Henry wrote:
/
/ In a message dated 98-02-23 20:52:09 EST, dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG writes:
/
/ Think of it this way. We (as GM's) "teach" the players
/ what is and is not acceptable. In so doing we create a "precendant", one that
/ may become quite difficult to "undo" at a later date. Sure, we can change the
/ game level, game power, characters involved, and so on ad nauseum (which is
/ exactly how I feel at the moment), but we cannot change what the players have
/ come to believe is the established "status quo" of game mechanics.

Ah, now I understand what you're getting at.

Yes, it's definitely not easy when you (the GM) realize that you're
running a cocked up game and have been handing out to many toys,
powers, money, etc. And yes, the players are probably going to
resent it if you change the rules without notice.

My advice would be to think about it for awhile. Are you and your
players having fun? If yes, they you really don't need to change
anything. If no, then you need to figure out what you and/or your
players want.

If its just affecting you, then you should sit down with your players
and talk it out. Let them know that you're going to be changing how
you run your campaign. And let them know why (you're sick of being
part of an ever escalating arms race, you want to do more
roleplaying, combat has gotten boring, etc). More often then not if
you're up front and honest the others will give it a try.

A munchkin may take a little convincing. Try a simple, "Lets try it
this way for awhile and see how it works." In my experience the
good players love the change and the munchkin hates it and the
munchkin gets out voted when he wants to go back to the way things
were. Then, he either changes leaves.

/ > On the other hand, there's usually a friendship involved that can
/ > play merry hell with the situation. In the instance of my first
/ > munchkin encounter the twit was married to one of my best friends. I
/ > didn't want to come down on him for fear of alienating a friend. I
/ > felt it was a lose/lose situation at the time. If I told him to piss
/ > off, I'd lose friend. If I put up with it, I lost credibility with
/ > my other friends. In the end she figured it out and withdrew from
/ > the game, taking her husband with him. I can either ascribe that to
/ > her being honorable, or me being a jackass. (Whoa, I'm ranting
/ > again.)
/
/ No, if you are ranting, you are venting, and from the sounds of that story,
/ maybe you still need too from time to time. Pains of the Conscientious. We
/ all have them -IF- we admit to having one.

Yeah <sigh> it still haunts me from time to time.

/ > BTW, FWIW, if I had it to do all over again, I'd sit down with him
/ > and lay it out on the table. He'd probably leave and so would his
/ > wife, but she'd probably still be speaking to me.
/
/ Do you not just absolutely hate hindsight and it's clarity???

Indubitably.

BTW, hope you're feeling better :)

-David
--
"Laugh and grow strong."
- St. Ignatius of Loyola
--
ShadowRN GridSec: Enforcer Division
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about All Too Easy??, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!