Ethical questions

[Mourhelm]

Today I played Munchkin with two of my friends. After about an hour and a half I was at level nine while the two of them were at level eight.

I just finished my turn and used a magic lamp to get 4 treasures - 2 of them were GUALs. Since I didn't think I could win with effective power of 15 (I knew they both had things to use against me) and had to give charity I used my GUALs on both of my friends. I did this without thinking too much about how it will change the outcome of the game - I had nothing left after the last fight, except a +2 bonus to either side I got with the treasures and +5 monster enhancer, and I knew it was the last round (maybe the one before it).

After this move, the next player draw a monster and won the game. The other player, who lost, went ballistic and said what I did was wrong and I shouldn't have done it because it ruined the entire game (he probably would have won if I hadn't done it).

Have I really done something that bad given the fact that i didn't think it all the way through when I did it and given we, in my group, do random things without thinking all the time (so far as long as it's not at the end of the game)?

Have you ever made a random move at the end of the game?

Have you ever made a random move at the end of the game when you thought you couldn't win?

Do you think my friend is right to be so angry?

P.S.
For the record the other cards I had in my hand were: +3 steed enhancer, "feline intervention", "sandals of protection" and "boots of running really fast" (I was a dwarf so I could have six cards in my hands).

[gim88]

There's nothing wrong with what you did and your friend shouldn't have been so angry. It's just a game.


But, I would have played some of those item cards to the table and not given out the GUaL cards.

[MIB2826]

Originally Posted by Mourhelm

Today I played Munchkin with two of my friends. After about an hour and a half I was at level nine while the two of them were at level eight.

I just finished my turn and used a magic lamp to get 4 treasures - 2 of them were GUALs. Since I didn't think I could win with effective power of 15 (I knew they both had things to use against me) and had to give charity I used my GUALs on both of my friends. I did this without thinking too much about how it will change the outcome of the game - I had nothing left after the last fight, except a +2 bonus to either side I got with the treasures and +5 monster enhancer, and I knew it was the last round (maybe the one before it).

After this move, the next player draw a monster and won the game. The other player, who lost, went ballistic and said what I did was wrong and I shouldn't have done it because it ruined the entire game (he probably would have won if I hadn't done it).

Have I really done something that bad given the fact that i didn't think it all the way through when I did it and given we, in my group, do random things without thinking all the time (so far as long as it's not at the end of the game)?

Have you ever made a random move at the end of the game?

Have you ever made a random move at the end of the game when you thought you couldn't win?

Do you think my friend is right to be so angry?

P.S.
For the record the other cards I had in my hand were: +3 steed enhancer, "feline intervention", "sandals of protection" and "boots of running really fast" (I was a dwarf so I could have six cards in my hands).

You can only _use_ GUALs on other players as on offensive action.
ie If a Monster won't persue anyone of level 3 or below, and a player is level 3, you may play a GUAL on him to make him level 4.

Otherwise:
First, if I had too many cards in my hands and they would have included GUALs, I would have played them on myself. Even at level 9.

Second, your friend is a sore loser.

Thirdly, I can't remember randomly playing cards during Munchkin. Mostly all my plays are deliberate, although somtimes ill-conceived, or just plain mean and vindictive.

[Skunk]

You can play Go Up A Level on people?!

I mean I usually play it on myself but that is TOTALLY a Munchkin move! I love it! HEHEHE! If I ever have a GUAL card and someone just barely misses being beaten to death because they're level 4 or something... bwahahaha!

[Mental_Myopia]

Yep!
http://www.sjgames.com/munchkin/faq/

Q. Can I play Go Up a Level cards on another player to make him go up to a level such that a Monster that would previously ignore him will now chase him?
A. This is not the original intent of Go Up a Level cards, but this is such a munchkinly and vile idea that we like it too much to say no.

[Bazz]

sounds fine to me - and if i was you, i'd shamelessly victimise the one who complained in the next game, just to make a point (victimise the other player too, but gloat more when doing it to the whiner).

[Mourhelm]

Originally Posted by MIB2826

You can only _use_ GUALs on other players as on offensive action.

I disagree - if you can use a GUAL on another player for one reason (and you can) you can use it for any reason. the FAQ just gives an example for a reason so people won't ask themselves "Why would anyone want to do that?".

But back to the topic... (If you want to discuss this, open a new thread and link to this one).

Originally Posted by MIB2826

Thirdly, I can't remember randomly playing cards during Munchkin. Mostly all my plays are deliberate, although somtimes ill-conceived, or just plain mean and vindictive.

When you write mostly it seems like there are times that you just have too many cards and the other players are of equal power so you just randomly pick on one of them...

anyways, I know that if I would have thought about this move a bit more I probably wouldn't have done it - I could just carry the boots I had instead of keeping them in my hand for example. As I said, I didn't think about the outcome!

The really important question is, do you think that what i did was wrong on an ethical level because it "ruined the game"?

Thanks for your answers!

[MunchkinMan]

Originally Posted by Mourhelm

I disagree - if you can use a GUAL on another player for one reason (and you can) you can use it for any reason. the FAQ just gives an example for a reason so people won't ask themselves "Why would anyone want to do that?".

No, that's not true and your logic is specious at best. If you are given a certain set of conditions where you can or may do something, it does not follow that you can or may do that same thing under any other conditions you deem worthy. It doesn't work that way, and the typical game meta-rule is this: If the rules (or the "commentary") say you can do something, you can under the conditions that are given. Otherwise, you can't.

[Bazz]

personally i disagree, and i realise i'm obviously wrong, seeing as how erik is virtually infallible, but when i read a FAQ and a rule is illustrated through a specific example, i don't assume that that is the only situation in which it can be used. i look at it as a way of simplifying a genral rule. for example, i rem,ember in a game of Bites! i came across a similar situation as is described in the FAQ:

"You can't switch items during combat. In other words, you can't chose to wear a different helmet or different armor once combat has started. You also can't "unwield" one item which uses hands and "wield" another in its stead. Basically, all the items you were using or carrying must remain in their current states. Unfortunately, this means that if you lose or change your class or race, you don't start getting bonuses from other items you have in play that are usable by your new race or class, including items that anyone could use.
An example of such a case: An Elf is using the Bow with Ribbons and is carrying the Sword of Slaying Everything Except Squid. He has no extra Hands, so the Bow is using both of the Hands he has available. The Elf then goes into combat with anything but Squidzilla and is subsequently Cursed by another player to lose his race. He now loses the bonus for the Bow, and since he can't switch out the Bow and replace it with the Sword, he gets no bonus from it. As an aside: Should the player have another Elf card, he could play that immediately and get back his bonus from the Bow."

i wanted to play a vampire card from hand in order to get back the bonus from my blackerthanblack item - and the response from the owner, after i had quoted the FAQ, was: "Yeah, but you're a vampire, not an elf. doesn't count. My game, I get final word." the FAQ doesn't explicitly state that you can play a race card from hand, and regain use of any items that changing race prevented you from using, if the new race can use the cards, it only shows it through the elf example.

personally, i don't think the rule should be legislating to say when you should be playing the card on an opponent. for example, i might want to raise an opponents level in order to become the lowest level character in the game, or to make a specific opponent the "highest level opponent", allowing you to do many other munchkinly things. or hell, if you're level 9, and helping out a lower level character in combat (in order to get lots of treasures, obv), then any GUAL cards you have would be useless on yourself, but could make the difference between winning and losing the combat. or even just charging another player to make them GUAL, "I'll play this on you in exchange for your boots of buttkicking".

[MunchkinMan]

Originally Posted by Bazz

personally i disagree, and i realise i'm obviously wrong, seeing as how erik is virtually infallible, but when i read a FAQ and a rule is illustrated through a specific example, i don't assume that that is the only situation in which it can be used. i look at it as a way of simplifying a genral rule. for example, i rem,ember in a game of Bites! i came across a similar situation as is described in the FAQ:

"You can't switch items during combat. In other words, you can't chose to wear a different helmet or different armor once combat has started. You also can't "unwield" one item which uses hands and "wield" another in its stead. Basically, all the items you were using or carrying must remain in their current states. Unfortunately, this means that if you lose or change your class or race, you don't start getting bonuses from other items you have in play that are usable by your new race or class, including items that anyone could use.
An example of such a case: An Elf is using the Bow with Ribbons and is carrying the Sword of Slaying Everything Except Squid. He has no extra Hands, so the Bow is using both of the Hands he has available. The Elf then goes into combat with anything but Squidzilla and is subsequently Cursed by another player to lose his race. He now loses the bonus for the Bow, and since he can't switch out the Bow and replace it with the Sword, he gets no bonus from it. As an aside: Should the player have another Elf card, he could play that immediately and get back his bonus from the Bow."

i wanted to play a vampire card from hand in order to get back the bonus from my blackerthanblack item - and the response from the owner, after i had quoted the FAQ, was: "Yeah, but you're a vampire, not an elf. doesn't count. My game, I get final word." the FAQ doesn't explicitly state that you can play a race card from hand, and regain use of any items that changing race prevented you from using, if the new race can use the cards, it only shows it through the elf example.

personally, i don't think the rule should be legislating to say when you should be playing the card on an opponent. for example, i might want to raise an opponents level in order to become the lowest level character in the game, or to make a specific opponent the "highest level opponent", allowing you to do many other munchkinly things. or hell, if you're level 9, and helping out a lower level character in combat (in order to get lots of treasures, obv), then any GUAL cards you have would be useless on yourself, but could make the difference between winning and losing the combat. or even just charging another player to make them GUAL, "I'll play this on you in exchange for your boots of buttkicking".

There's a difference between an example and a specific rule or ruling. The example is a specific description applying the generalized rule or explanation, so what your friend did with respect to the Vampire issue was asinine and petty, in one respect, but it still resides within him to make a final decision. It might not be Marquess of Queensbury, but it's still a legitimate tack. What the FAQ says with respect to playing a GUAL on another player cites a specific circumstance where that activity is allowed. Please also note that the rules have never been changed to allow the play of GUAL cards on another player.