Consistency vs. Individuality


Advice

Sovereign Court

My players are munchkins... except one. They accept this designation so its not an insult. I'm not even complaining because they try and they laugh when they catch each other exploiting or whatever. Generally these questions get answered with "find new players" so I have to head off any such advice by saying that I've GM'd for these guys for 12, 23, 24 and 17 years. One of them gave me a kidney. For real.

My issue is actually with the non-munchkin. Its not a complaint, again... its just an issue. Basically, he makes choices motivated by roleplaying and ultimately feels bad when he gets policed like the others who may be denied something or have the strictest interpretation of a rule enforced because they're munchkins and they know it. He's basically said that if he's going to get treated like a munchkin, he'll start acting like one. Yeah... 47 year old men are sometimes children. Well... mostly they're children but they hide it better.

So I told him I pretty much have two choices: Treat people on individual merit so that I can reward them based on what they do and not on what I expect from everyone else. In this case, I would have to face the poopstorm that happens when I say one person can have or do something that another can't. "I have the same resources as him. I have the same access as him. Why can he have a Pegasus mount and I can't?" etc.

Or, I can treat everyone consistently. "One guide to rule them all." Everyone knows what to expect because, like almost every other game, everyone's okaying on the same field with the same rules. If I disallowed something for someone, you don't need to ask about it. If I allowed it for someone, you can do it, too.

I've chosen the latter route... but I figured I'd be open to discussing it with others to gain more insight. In a game with very close friends, is this the path you'd choose?


Everyone should play by the same rules. The reason is that if you allow him to use option A, the others may see it, and use it to break the game. It also prevents any claims of favouritism.

Tell him you are sorry, and explain to him what I just explained to you. If he wants to play like the others, that is on him.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Working the rules under the guise of Role Play is just as munchkin as working the rules for the fun of it. :)

If he really is going for the RP angle - then half of the stuff he asks for will weaken his character (in comparison to the game world) rather than strengthen him.

I remember trying to explain to one co-player (over and over again) that the character I played used a Flail for RP purposes - even though he could show me better damage progression by switching to a long sword :)

When I GM I follow the same philosophy as you do. Once a rule has been 'interpreted' for the party - it holds for everyone, players and GM alike. If I give to much away to one character - then I have to grin and bear it when every one else comes along looking for something similar.


I agree that consistency should be the baseline assumption.

However, if your friends are all aware that they're a group of munchkins with one non-munchkin it might not be entirely unreasonable to treat them differently. If the non-munchkin wants something cool for a flavorful and non-powerful reason, you could just discuss it with the whole group. Just tell the rest of them that since they're all munchkins, you don't want to open op this specific resource to everyone, but that if they're okay with it you would like to give it to the non-munchkin for flavorful coolness reasons.

If the munchkins aren't okay with it, don't do it. If they are, it might even encourage them to make decisions for flavor over power occasionally as well.


I think he should play a higher tier of class than the others. If they min max their barbarians and rogues, he should be roleplaying the wizard.


KenB3 wrote:
I think he should play a higher tier of class than the others. If they min max their barbarians and rogues, he should be roleplaying the wizard.

That doesn't quite work wizards require a lot of system mastery to be played the way that makes them overpowered.


Yeah, I get this because I'm usually the non-munchkin at the table. I've learned the benefits over the years of creating more dice-effective characters, but I'm still not as good at it as some, nor do I go optimized in every way. In exchange, I've learned to understand that yes, someone who focuses on exploiting every rule they can to be the best they can be is sometimes going to be more effective than my character. It's usually not too bad, dice being what they are, provided I put in some effort to be a contender.

Maybe you should point out to your friend that there's a middle ground. Only a Sith deals in absolutes. He doesn't have to go munchkin or go home. He can make a BETTER, MORE optimized character, without trying as hard as some of his fellow players. In return he'll be more effective and have more fun, even though he may not truly compete with the munchkins.


(1) Tim (the ToolMan Taylor) says govern based on the individual. You're not a computer program, you're a GM. Part of the deal is applying your own judgement and discretion.

(2) If Munchkinnery is just the style you prefer, then just tell the poor soul and be done with it. Otherwise, if it's valuable to you and your table that the non-Munchkin is a non-Munchkin, then reward him for the value he brings to the table. It is *not a problem* when players whine about your decisions. A _concern_, maybe, but not a problem. Do whatever you need to in order to make your games good hang-out experiences.

Sovereign Court

Thanks for all the replies and sorry for disappearing. My daughter got sick and by sick I mean I had to clean the floor and a couple of walls... stomach virus. Yuck.

I can see the merits of the Tim Taylor method while dealing with my family. I have one child who throws herself into her homework as soon as she gets home and needs no reminders to bring what she needs (music instrument, books, etc.) when she needs to bring them. She LIKES me to be involved, though, so I always check with her so she can feel proud and tell daddy she's on top of things. Her twin sister, however, has walked out to go to school WITHOUT her book bag, needs to be nudged to do her homework or she'd "forget" and misses due dates all the time... but HATES when I stay on top of her and just needs to make her mistakes to really learn. So long as we're just dealing with a forgotten book or assignment, I'm ok with dealing with each of them on their own terms (but when its something that can have serious consequences, daddy's doing it HIS way).

Games are different. I wouldn't agree to let a player have Boardwalk for free in Monopoly because he comes to the game dressed in beach attire and painstakingly altered the shoe to look like a sandal no matter how much he explains why he deserves it. Granted, a rpg is supposed to be more than a board game. In Monopoly, I wouldn't agree that a player is scamming vacationers by replacing their valuables in the hotel safe with replicas and selling the originals but in a rpg, that sounds like a great plot. But at the very basic level of how you apply the rules, the analogy works.

I think consistency is what I have to live with.


Everyone should be judged by the same meter-stick; you don't police the other players because they're munchkins, you police them because it's the rules and you prefer to play by the rules. But point out to this odd-ball that there is a rule that governs giving "extra" benefit to people for good roleplay and heroic acts; Hero Points. If he does something that's mechanically detrimental for the sake of roleplay and theme, give him hero points for it. If the other players (who are munchkins) want, they might be able to earn some hero points; though they probably aren't willing to sacrifice much for them. You can even eschew the benefit of hero points entirely in exchange for a bonus feat (which they would likely enjoy greatly) at the price of never being able to gain or benefit directly from hero points ever.


I actually think you should compensate your RP guy, but discuss it with the entire group first. My main arguments for this are:

1. The classes by themselves aren't anyway near equally powerful choices - the tiers are very real IMO.

2. The amount of time a player can spend optimizing his PC tend to vary greatly from person to person, especially in a group of older players where some often have more pressing real life concerns, such as sick daughters... :-)

3. Player preferences regarding the degree of RP flavor and/or optimization vary wildly (as in your case), while all can bring fun to the table and should thus be rewarded.

4. Building interesting adventures/encounters that challenges all of the PCs becomes much easier for you when the party consists of PCs of roughly equal power levels, which in turn should make the game more fun for everybody.

Of course, you shouldn't take it to the extreme - your munchkin players should still get to reap mechanical benefits from their work, but the RP guy's PC shouldn't have to be left so far behind.

For what it's worth, I'm also playing in a group of old men (children) and friends, and though we haven't had exactly this problem, we've definitely had our share of party imbalances. Now when we're starting our first PF campaign, we apply different PC creation rules for different PCs in order to get them closer to being on the same power level. For example, the ranger gets beneficial house rules and he's allowed to mix in non-core sources while the summoner is strictly core with a core race and gets no traits or similar extras. In addition, our DM often make the more powerful items we find fit for the least powerful PC, as well as less tangible resources such as useful and cool in-game contacts.

Silver Crusade

roccojr wrote:
My players are munchkins... except one. They accept this designation so its not an insult. I'm not even complaining because they try and they laugh when they catch each other exploiting or whatever. Generally these questions get answered with "find new players" so I have to head off any such advice by saying that I've GM'd for these guys for 12, 23, 24 and 17 years. One of them gave me a kidney. For real.

That's awesome. I can see it now:

Roccojr: There's no way I'm allowing you to play that!

Player: OK, that's cool. I mean I only allowed you to have one of my kidneys...

Roccojr: Fine! Fine! OK I'll allow you to have the transforming battle suit but I'm drawing the line at the orbital weapons platform.


I think there should be some reward for roleplaying. If the one non-munchkin gets nothing for his efforts, he is being penalized. Perhaps if you started giving the roleplayer more rewards, the other munchkins may start getting the idea, and start roleplaying more. Instead of penalizing good behaviour (as you are suggesting you plan to do), you should reward good behaviour. Conversely, by treating all your munchkins exactly the same as the good roleplayer, you are rewarding the munchkins, since they are seeing no penalty for their bad roleplaying.

I doubt the poop storm will be too bad, if the munchkins realize that if they change their ways, they will get the same beneficial treatment.


Can you reflavor stuff? If the non-munchkin wants a Pegasus, but you don't want everyone to have one, can he have a horse? Then just say its a Pegasus but cannot fly anymore because of old war injury, under a curse, afraid of heights, etc. Allow him the mechanics you allow everyone else just let him call it something different.

Sovereign Court

FallofCamelot wrote:


That's awesome. I can see it now:

Roccojr: There's no way I'm allowing you to play that!

Player: OK, that's cool. I mean I only allowed you to have one of my kidneys...

Roccojr: Fine! Fine! OK I'll allow you to have the transforming battle suit but I'm drawing the line at the orbital weapons platform.

We've definitely joked about it. When the situation seems to be going his way, I',, turn to the others and say, "See the benefits of giving me a kidney?"

And when he jokes about deserving speciaal treatment, I usually tell him that he'd have to give me another kidney if he expects me to be impressed.. Or a heart (bad genes.... Kidney transplant, cancer survivor, heart patient.... But I have great teeth!)


roccojr wrote:

We've definitely joked about it. When the situation seems to be going his way, I',, turn to the others and say, "See the benefits of giving me a kidney?"

And when he jokes about deserving speciaal treatment, I usually tell him that he'd have to give me another kidney if he expects me to be impressed.. Or a heart (bad genes.... Kidney transplant, cancer survivor, heart patient.... But I have great teeth!)

Depending on the party size he'll never need another kidney again. what would happen to a person who has 5 or 6?

Sovereign Court

Dakota_Strider wrote:

I think there should be some reward for roleplaying. If the one non-munchkin gets nothing for his efforts, he is being penalized. Perhaps if you started giving the roleplayer more rewards, the other munchkins may start getting the idea, and start roleplaying more. Instead of penalizing good behaviour (as you are suggesting you plan to do), you should reward good behaviour. Conversely, by treating all your munchkins exactly the same as the good roleplayer, you are rewarding the munchkins, since they are seeing no penalty for their bad roleplaying.

I doubt the poop storm will be too bad, if the munchkins realize that if they change their ways, they will get the same beneficial treatment.

Trust me, the storm would be epic. One of the munchkins wants the same thing.

Plus it opens the door to hearing everyone's individual arguments about why they deserve special consideration at some point. Maybe 15 years ago, that would be fine. Now, its just far more enjoyable to minimize the rulings that someone's going to take personally... And if they're asking for something someone else was allowed to do or have, its completely within reason to take that personally.

Sovereign Court

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Can you reflavor stuff? If the non-munchkin wants a Pegasus, but you don't want everyone to have one, can he have a horse? Then just say its a Pegasus but cannot fly anymore because of old war injury, under a curse, afraid of heights, etc. Allow him the mechanics you allow everyone else just let him call it something different.

Its not like I said he can't have it. He can. The rules (including a house rule) simply make it less attractive than he'd like. The house rule says cohorts take a share of xp if they adventure with the master pc. Seeing as its his mount, it would be adventuring most of the time hte pc is.

Btw, I tried to let everyone have Leadership for free seeing as we're pkaying Kingmaker. I simpky said that if it was abused, it would go away. We didn't get passed one session when there was a discussion and everone agreed (mostly because of everyone else but not themselves) that the free Leadership feat had to go away.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Consistency vs. Individuality All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Advice