| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you haven't seen the gamers 2 dorkness rising.. what the heck kind of geek are you?
We all know the moral of the story. The munchkins are having bad wrong fun and ruining worlds of opportunity. Role play more, munchkin less, and your group will have more fun.
I think the blatant moral overlooks a some more subtle problems with the DM
"story trumps rules"
First off, While pulling something like taking away a clerics powers for a fight is flipping a coin (it can either be a great show of depth or a total pull), not accounting for that in a fight is absolutely horrible. Of course the party isn't going to last as long without any undead turning and healing. The party was killed by DM fiat.. of COURSE the players are going to get upset.
"it would force you to role play...."
This is the stormwind fallacy writ large. Suddenly the characters have less power so they'll role play more. It doesn't work like that. The amount of Role play does not increase just because the roll play decreases.
Bikinimail aside, The munchkin is right about the role of the fighter. A 9th level fighter with 45 hit points should be in for a world of hurt. Talking your way past problems doesn't work very well in D&D, and at 9th level a charisma bonus is going to be pretty irrelevant compared to your ranks. The fighter she made SHOULD be spending more time horizontal than the bard but...
The DM either hates the bards player or hasn't realized that he's no longer playing the fighter. He's spent so many years attacking his turtles in heavy armor that he automatically attacks him repeatedly despite having better targets.
In the goblin scene the sorceress farted on god, and the monk has his... nose. The fighter and paladin are both standing there armed, the bard has a lute... so they shoot the bard?????. They should be killing Joanna's character every round after the first.
There's a few zombies on Joanna, the bard gets the entire horde.
The technicalities of making a save on a 20 aside, WHY is there an encounter with a save that the MONK can't make? Its horrible dming to throw them up against something that auto enslaves them.
In the big show down, Joana gets knocked to 6 HP in one shot... and then doesn't die when the big bad whaps her.
The Mort Kemnon fight was overpowering, the party only one because of the intervention of the giant kitty, a lightsab... psionic spear blade, a shotgun, and a freaking chainsaw.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What really annoyed me is how they all is about Joana not going Munchkin and optimizing, but then that goes that weird Int-to-crit-range + extra attacks route. She actually is really optimized.
At least for fights against multiple weak enemies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And the alleged munchkin was at least TRYING to role play his character with the fortune cookie koans. They would have gotten laughs around the table.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why can't both sides be a little bit wrong?
The GM had a point that the group was comfortable with only one style of play, and it was pretty much US VS GM; remember, the munchkin was also the one who said, "there's not a game on these shelves that can beat me".
The group was right that the GM should not be so heavy-handed with the story that their hands were tied no matter what route they took.
Both sides were also a little bit right, too.
The GM did try to give the group a story that hopefully would keep them interested and entertained. Even after Brother Silence was stripped of his ears, and started doing the crazy quotes, he was only discouraged by the GM once (and the quote, while hilarious, would make my brain hurt if I ever heard it spoken earnestly at the table). He encouraged roleplay. That's a good thing.
The group was right that you need at least a little bit of optimization. The group also questioned certain decisions the GM made that were honestly a bit unfair, such as stripping a cleric of his powers or not being allowed to play certain core races due to GM prejudice--the core races thing was the one decision of Lodge's I found to be unfair.
My opinion: A good group will compromise about game play styles when there is conflict. A good group will communicate, hopefully avoiding some of the conflict that can crop up. A good group will also know when to step outside their comfort zone for a possible greater game experience, too.
Why can't both sides be a little bit wrong?
A few reasons
1) The DM cannot be a little wrong because he is really really really really REAAAAAAAALLLLY wrong for the reasons listed above.
2) The extent to which the munchkin is wrong is already addressed/exagerated in the story. In fact in the story he has ALL of the blame.
The GM had a point that the group was comfortable with only one style of play, and it was pretty much US VS GM; remember, the munchkin was also the one who said, "there's not a game on these shelves that can beat me".
Which is probably only wrong to the degree it was taken.
The group was right that the GM should not be so heavy-handed with the story that their hands were tied no matter what route they took.
Going to call no fault on that one. Most games or scenarios are like that.
The group was right that you need at least a little bit of optimization.
Right, but all you ever saw was Joana kicking rear. You never saw the downside of having a front liner with 45 hit points because the DM was too busy having everything kill the bard.
You know that the movie is supposed to be a funny one?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We all know the moral of the story. The munchkins are having bad wrong fun and ruining worlds of opportunity. Role play more, munchkin less, and your group will have more fun.
That is NOT the moral of the story. The moral of the story the DM should let the players play their characters the way they want to.
Initially, Lodge is terrified that the munchkin players will ruin his precious module by being typical PCs. Early on he is shown to be heavy-handed and controlling. A key scene is the conversation between Lodge and Joanna wherein she tells him to relax and trust his players. When he finally does so, everyone ends up having a good time.
Also, the bit about Joanna's insane critical attacking fighter is not that optimization is bad. The messages are that A) gamer girls do not exist merely to wear chainmail bikinis and hook up in the tavern and B) it's possible to cleverly optimize without making a cookie-cutter character.
Lodge and Cass represent the railraoding DM vs. the munchkin player. Eventually, both learn their lesson, but with a lot of laughs along the way.
Keep in mind that it's just a movie, and a lot of stuff is simply there for comedic effect. Don't read too much into it.
You know that the movie is supposed to be a funny one?
Oh definitely. Its a hilarious documentary.
We all know the moral of the story. The munchkins are having bad wrong fun and ruining worlds of opportunity. Role play more, munchkin less, and your group will have more fun.That is NOT the moral of the story. The moral of the story the DM should let the players play their characters the way they want to.
1) The munchkin is the one that had to admit wrongdoing and beg the group to take him back
Initially, Lodge is terrified that the munchkin players will ruin his precious module by being typical PCs. Early on he is shown to be heavy-handed and controlling. A key scene is the conversation between Lodge and Joanna wherein she tells him to relax and trust his players. When he finally does so, everyone ends up having a good time.
2) At the end the DM went so far as to have a god change Luster the evil trollop's alignment to good AND change their class to cleric so they had to stay that way or loose all their spells. Thats in no way shape or form letting them play their characters their way. It is pretty literal godming.
Also, the bit about Joanna's insane critical attacking fighter is not that optimization is bad. The messages are that A) gamer girls do not exist merely to wear chainmail bikinis and hook up in the tavern and B) it's possible to cleverly optimize without making a cookie-cutter character.
Both valid points, but B shoots over the reason for the cookie cutter being there in the first place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) The munchkin is the one that had to admit wrongdoing and beg the group to take him back
The munchkin had to apologize because he went off on a fellow player for role-playing! This one event does not invalidate everything else that occured in the movie.
2) At the end the DM went so far as to have a god change Luster the evil trollop's alignment to good AND change their class to cleric so they had to stay that way or loose all their spells. Thats in no way shape or form letting them play their characters their way. It is pretty literal godming.
I think it's obvious you and I disagree about which scenes were "morals of the story" and which were simply for comedic effect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
LOL, this thread is hilarious.
With all the nonsense and tomfoolery going on in this series of videos someone is complaining about the fictional GM's activities? In a game where the players literally end up using lightsabres, energy weapons and chainsaws?
Wow.
You watched this...and your big issue is the DM???
Yes actually (mind you it dawned on my about the 10th time through). First because he's behaving worse than the players (which is saying something)Secondly because as the DM there's no check on his power. With an incredibly small amount of power comes a little responsibility not to abuse it.
The monk acted like a munchkining A-Hole the entire game.
Examples? Yes. Seriously. He's playing a monk (hardly the best class)he wanted to play an elven monk (probably the worst race for the class) he's hardly got a powerful build there.
He should have left and found a game that matches his style...like playing Warhammer 40k.
The monk would probably be ok to have around the table. A DM that ignores better targets to attack one persons character, makes a monster so horrific no one can make the save against it not so much.
LOL, this thread is hilarious.
With all the nonsense and tomfoolery going on in this series of videos someone is complaining about the fictional GM's activities? In a game where the players literally end up using lightsabres, energy weapons and chainsaws?
Wow.
The players tomfoolery is a little more blatant, and everyone knows the complainer is always wrong. No one ever seems to point out what the DM is doing is horrible by every measure of dming.
1) The munchkin is the one that had to admit wrongdoing and beg the group to take him backThe munchkin had to apologize because he went off on a fellow player for role-playing! This one event does not invalidate everything else that occured in the movie.
He had a point there too. Wishing for someone to be brought back from the dead in a room full of clerics and paladins is like wishing to get your horse shod on the corner of smith and anvil streets. Its not so much role playing as failing to understand the nature of the world that your character lives in.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know, I think I agree with Sebastrd.
It's been a while since I saw it, but I'm remembering a scene where the female player explains to the module writer that his players misbehave because he's such a controlling DM.
[Scurries over to Netflix]
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I sense that BNW is working out some issues with his own GM by means of this movie...
I haven't seen it in a while, so I don't remember much very well. I DO remember that the GM's regular players were condescending jerks toward the new player's build and character. The GM may have been a bad GM, but the other players (especially the one playing the monk PC) were being rude and unwelcoming to someone trying to get into the hobby (and implicitly accused her of "badwrongfun" when they started talking about her build).
[quote}Bikinimail aside, The munchkin is right about the role of the fighter. A 9th level fighter with 45 hit points should be in for a world of hurt. Talking your way past problems doesn't work very well in D&D, and at 9th level a charisma bonus is going to be pretty irrelevant compared to your ranks. The fighter she made SHOULD be spending more time horizontal than the bard but...
True story about hit points and levels of characters - I was playing 3.0 back in the day with a "hardcore" DM who insisted we roll both our ability scores, and our hitpoints. My fighter/rogue lasted all the way to level 5 with 12 hit points. Trust me, it can be done. And Joanna's character is only about 20 hp behind the curve - it's really not that bad.
I'm really tickled by your claim that "Talking your way past problems doesn't work very well in D&D." That may be true in YOUR games, but not in all games... unless you're implying there's a right way and a wrong way to play the game?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The main theme of the movie is that both sides are wrong, and they end up coming together somewhere in the middle.
The DM is a control freak, but he eventually gives in on a lot of the sillier stuff and lets them get away with all sorts of crap (the pile of dead bards, the light saber, chain saw, dynamite, etc).
But the monk player is a total munchkin who blows up at his ex-girlfriend and walks out of the game. So he's the one who ends up owing the others an apology in the end.
Oh definitely. Its a hilarious documentary.You know that the movie is supposed to be a funny one?
Are you serious?
Are you serious?Oh definitely. Its a hilarious documentary.You know that the movie is supposed to be a funny one?
As serious as the movie.
As serious as the movie.Are you serious?Oh definitely. Its a hilarious documentary.You know that the movie is supposed to be a funny one?
LOL, excellent.
I sense that BNW is working out some issues with his own GM by means of this movie...
Not at all. Our usual DM is a pile of fluff. Sorry Troy.
I haven't seen it in a while, so I don't remember much very well. I DO remember that the GM's regular players were condescending jerks toward the new player's build and character. The GM may have been a bad GM, but the other players (especially the one playing the monk PC) were being rude and unwelcoming to someone trying to get into the hobby (and implicitly accused her of "badwrongfun" when they started talking about her build).
True story about hit points and levels of characters - I was playing 3.0 back in the day with a "hardcore" DM who insisted we roll both our ability scores, and our hitpoints.
I'm really skeptical of tales of people do things like this out of sheer awesome or allegedly good tactics without providing specifics.
I'm really tickled by your claim that "Talking your way past problems doesn't work very well in D&D." That may be true in YOUR games, but not in all games... unless you're implying there's a right way and a wrong way to play the game?
It might work what, what time in 4?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1) The munchkin is the one that had to admit wrongdoing and beg the group to take him back
After *screaming* at Joanna that she ruined their game then storming out like a big crybaby dramaqueen - yes Cass had to apologize to Joanna and *ask* (there was no begging I don't know where you got that idea) Lodge to come back. Ooooo poor little munchkin finally had to own up to his assholishness.
2) At the end the DM went so far as to have a god change Luster the evil trollop's alignment to good AND change their class to cleric so they had to stay that way or loose all their spells. Thats in no way shape or form letting them play their characters their way. It is pretty literal godming.
Of course Gary was violating the rules of the game Lodge was running by playing a CE character and clearly had no real plan for his character. he was playing a wild mage because he thought it would be really powerful and (most likely) Cass convinced him playing another cleric would get him screwed by Lodge again.
Lodge is hardly blameless for how terrible his game had become (gloating over a player rolling a 1 is just petty) but really the us vs. GM relationship in D&D is something that does exist and it was nice to see that, despite mistakes on both sides, the people involved were still friends and ended up back at the table for another campaign. THAT is the moral of the story (if it has one) - don't let games interfere with real life friendships.
After *screaming* at Joanna that she ruined their game then storming out like a big crybaby dramaqueen - yes Cass had to apologize to Joanna and *ask* (there was no begging I don't know where you got that idea) Lodge to come back. Ooooo poor little munchkin finally had to own up to his assholishness.
Which is great, but note that he's the only one that does this.
The DM doesn't have to say he's sorry for not being able to scale encounters and targeting only one player at the table.
Joana doesn't have to say she's sorry for not listening to people with years of experience doing this who might have some insight to offer.
Troublesome strumpet doesn't have to apologize for chaotic "neutral" acts.
The bard doesn't have to apologize for... you know i think he's about the only one that didn't do anything really wrong. he apparently made a thematically focused bard and played him well for a bard. its not like he made him like a fighter and charged into melee every round to die.
Of course Gary was violating the rules of the game Lodge was running by playing a CE character and clearly had no real plan for his character. he was playing a wild mage because he thought it would be really powerful and (most likely) Cass convinced him playing another cleric would get him screwed by Lodge again.
And he was right. Mort Kemnon shut off the paladins powers in the final fight. If you KNOW the end boss shuts down cleric abilities why on earth would you play a cleric?
Lodge is hardly blameless for how terrible his game had become (gloating over a player rolling a 1 is just petty)
Denying a player a saving throw is pretty high up there on the list of DM cardinal sins, as is throwing in an encounter with a DC so high the party can't make it.
but really the us vs. GM relationship in D&D is something that does exist and it was nice to see that, despite mistakes on both sides, the people involved were still friends and ended up back at the table for another campaign. THAT is the moral of the story (if it has one) - don't let games interfere with real life friendships.
It has several. Also note that the title is the munchkin has a point, not that he's absolutely correct.
Do I really need to provide examples?
1. Him saying no game can beat him.
Munchkiny but not nasty.
2. Him insisting on using his bikini mail character for the girl when she made her own and him telling her she can't play it.
I would not simply hand the core rule book to anyone and then say "here make something at 9th level" and expect them to do so.
Bikini mail was listed as the best armor a female can wear, and he apparently made a rather strong, burly, tough as nails warrior for her. Making a fighter with a high strength and high con (strongest guy in the party, hitpoints out the rear) is basic optimization, not munchkining.
3. Them all metagaming and insisting they just go straight to the mountain (led by cass).
to be fair it is the third time they're playing the adventure.
4. Him yelling at the girl at the end telling her it was the stupidest decision ever made in a game.
Yelling was out of line.
5. Him insisting on playing a monk elf when it was already agreed upon that wasn't part of the setting.
Annoying but not munchkiny: its downright anti munchkin.
6. Him insisting he gets a roll for the being possessed by the demon (ok whatever) and then pouting when he rolls a 1 and his char gets taken
He was upset with it (who wouldn't be) but had no problem being hoisted by his own petard.
Who here wouldn't be a little annoyed at a dm that said "Sorry, you may have a good wisdom, a high will save, and specific bonuses against this sort of thing, but you STILL can't make the save, at all..."
This could go on forever. The DM had issues in his style as brought up with convos with the girl, but Cass was clearly being a complete douche throughout the game.
Except that the DM didn't change his style at all- he still has the party babysitter and tossed in a literal deux ex machina, and Joanna didn't bring up his more egregious acts of insane dming. (probably because she doesn't know they're insane)
Wow... Just wow. Uh, guys... This movie was a satire based on all the stupid things gamers have done or seen during years of D&D. It wasn't about Pathfinder. The bard was a joke in 2nd edition. The monk could only be human in 1st edition. Male players playing female characters often did stupid things like have them wear chain mail bikinis. If there was a moral, it was simply that it is JUST A GAME and friendships are more important. I can't tell you the number of times that I rolled up 4-5 characters in a night due to DM screws or stupid playing on my part... Or bad rolls. The fun part was hanging out with friends and playing a game.
Not at all. Our usual DM is a pile of fluff. Sorry Troy.
I see - you're just enraged that there's a fictional depiction of "mean ol' gm?" In that case, I suggest not taking your entertainment so seriously. You're apt to get into a fit of apoplexy.
I'm really skeptical of tales of people do things like this out of sheer awesome or allegedly good tactics without providing specifics.
So... what, I'm a liar, then? I'm making stuff up to win an internet argument? You seem to have some trust/antagonism issues.
Fighter 2/Rogue 3. High dex/cha/int, low con/str (each had a -1 penalty). Kingdoms of Kalamar campaign setting. He made judicious use of fighting defensively and combat expertise, and used ranged weapons when necessary. Believe it or not, smart tactics and good teamwork will let you get away with not having a so-called "optimized build." But then, I'm probably playing the game wrong, just like Joanna, right?
I'm really tickled by your claim that "Talking your way past problems doesn't work very well in D&D." That may be true in YOUR games, but not in all games... unless you're implying there's a right way and a wrong way to play the game?
<i>It might work what, what time in 4?</i>
It'll work (nearly) every time when it's appropriate and the players make sound choices about how to go about it. I've run encounters that I fully expected to be fights, but my players approached the situation with some clever thinking and used the desires/dispositions of enemies to negotiate truces or compromises.
Like Cass, you're assuming that D&D is primarily (perhaps even exclusively) a tactics game. And while it certainly can be played that way, it doesn't have to be - as Joanna, the gm, and I are trying to point out.
After *screaming* at Joanna that she ruined their game then storming out like a big crybaby dramaqueen - yes Cass had to apologize to Joanna and *ask* (there was no begging I don't know where you got that idea) Lodge to come back. Ooooo poor little munchkin finally had to own up to his assholishness.Which is great, but note that he's the only one that does this.
The DM doesn't have to say he's sorry for not being able to scale encounters and targeting only one player at the table.
Joana doesn't have to say she's sorry for not listening to people with years of experience doing this who might have some insight to offer.
Troublesome strumpet doesn't have to apologize for chaotic "neutral" acts.
The bard doesn't have to apologize for... you know i think he's about the only one that didn't do anything really wrong. he apparently made a thematically focused bard and played him well for a bard. its not like he made him like a fighter and charged into melee every round to die.
Here's what you don't seem to understand - it's a point I made in my original post that you ignored, so let me reiterate it here: The "sins" of the gm, the sorc, and Joanna are all "in-game" mistakes - Joanna (arguably) builds a character that doesn't perform her role properly. The sorc messes around on the alignment scale. The gm has poor encounter design. Cass, on the other hand, is a JERK. The things he has to apologize for are things that he does as a PERSON, not a player. He's extremely rude, condescending, and antagonistic.
Perhaps you think that playing the game "poorly" (by whatever odd definition you derive for that) is as worthy of an apology as being repeatedly rude and shouting angrily at another player at the table. I think most of us would strongly disagree with that - it is, after all, just a game (or in this case, a fictional depiction of a hypothetical game).
|
All I all, I really liked it. I took it as an assortment of all of the bad sort of players (including GM's) as well as a lot of the typical stereotypes that gamers present, rather than that these where real people. All except the female (Johanna, I don't remember any of their names, honestly), which seemed too perfect. She is the one that really never has an issue, walks the straight and narrow between being fully invested in the story, RP's well, and is also optimized, acts as the confidant of the pretty insane GM, and foil to al of the other player's foibles. But other than that, I kind of took it for what it was, an examination of gamers, both satirical and stereotypical comedy from the outsiders perspective. Kind of a mix of every D&D/gamer sort of joke there is, not particularly new, but still entertaining and familiar.
see - you're just enraged that there's a fictional depiction of "mean ol' gm?"
Dude, I am not enraged over the movie, I'm pointing out something that a lot of people seem to miss (and i certainly did the first few times through)
Your ad homey and blatantly wrong pop psychology on the other hand is starting to grate.
So... what, I'm a liar, then? I'm making stuff up to win an internet argument? You seem to have some trust/antagonism issues.
No. I think you may be mistaking luck, someone else covering for you, the DM taking pity on you, and not doing enough damage to draw the bad guys attention and more luck for skill.
It'll work (nearly) every time when it's appropriate and the players make sound choices about how to go about it.
Which is how often, honestly?
Lets look at the encounters they actually faced
Goblins: Could have been talked past if the players weren't being jerks.
Stegasaurus haircut guy with undead ninjas: Not a chance
The undead servants of mort kemnon: No. They're undead
The death demon: Yeaaaah no.
Mort Kemnon: The big bad has taken the power of death unto himself. I don't think he's interested in talking.
Like Cass, you're assuming that D&D is primarily (perhaps even exclusively) a tactics game. And while it certainly can be played that way, it doesn't have to be - as Joanna, the gm, and I are trying to point out.
Concluding. I'm concluding that you are going to have to throw down and kill something at some point, and you had best be decent at it.
Look, my gnomes response to "you're traveling into the goblin woods" was to buy a cart full of food, 2 barrels of ale, 8 flasks of alchemists fire, and a big banner that said "welcome Goblins". His response to seeing two worgs was to trade sausages for riding privileges.
It is entirely possible to both make a character that is optimized AND doesn't run around trying to kill everything.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm reminded of an article I read online a couple of years ago. I think it might have been on Cracked magazine's site. The title was along the lines of "Movie villains who were right all along".
I don't remember them all, but I know it included the school principal from Ferris Bueller's Day Off (he was just trying to catch a kid who skipped school and hacked the school's computer system) and the Wicked Witch of the West. Think about it, Dorothy comes out of nowhere and kills her sister (admittedly, that part was an accident), then steals the most valuable possession (the ruby slippers) that she should have inherited. The witch was right - Dorothy should have given her the slippers. They were rightfully hers, unless her sister had a will that said she wanted to leave them to someone other than her closest relative.
There was a related article about how the "good" witch in The Wizard of Oz is actually the most evil, manipulative, and successful villain in all of movie history.
Edit: And after a quick google search: http://www.cracked.com/article_18417_9-famous-movie-villains-who-were-right -all-along.html