Timely Monster Killing

[runnerdude77]

Ok, so the rules say that one must wait a reasonable time, which is 2.6 seconds, before you actually kill the monster you are facing so other players have a chance to screw you over in combat.

My question is when you are about to kill a monster, do you wait until everyone sees the monster before you kill it even though it has been well past the 2.6 seconds or do you just wait 2.6 seconds and send the monster to the discard pile while some people weren't paying attention and are now arguing that its not fair?

This is a serious problem in our friend's group...

[Andrew Hackard]

You say, out loud, "I'm killing this monster unless anyone stops me." And then you count off 2.6 seconds, and if no one stops you, you've killed it.

[runnerdude77]

That sounds very reasonable. but my friends get all bent out of shape when I do that.
They think everyone needs to be paying attention and if someone is not paying attention, you must attract their attention to the combat at hand just to be fair...

[Clipper]

Incidentally, was this actually a Munchkin Quest question? It sounds like you're actually asking about Munchkin instead. The correct phrase to use for MQ to indicate you are ready to finish the combat is "I'm rolling!" as you won't necessarily know that you will be killing the monster unless your combat strength is high enough that the roll won't matter.

In any case, the statement, loudly spoken, should be enough to attract their attention. If it doesn't, it's their loss. If they complain about this, that perhaps they don't have enough time to study the combat and react after you make your announcement, then perhaps also announce clearly whenever you start a combat, which will give them plenty of time to figure out what's going on.

[runnerdude77]

I'm gonna be honest with you. I'm still slightly new to Munchkin and I did not even know what Munchkin Quest is... So I just posted this somewhere haha.

[Blazinjsin]

In larger games at my table, side conversations become an issue and people aren't always paying attention. When they complain that they missed something they could have done, I usually point out that they also could have been paying attention and it's their problem.

[Andrew Hackard]

If I'm running a demo or playtest and people aren't paying attention, I don't hesitate to call them out, because they're ruining the game for the other players. If the problem is really bad, I'll ask them to leave the table. It is not too much to ask for someone playing a game to be focused primarily on that game.

[EpicMage]

My friends and I play every week. What we do when we're about to kill a monster is say, "I'm going to beat it. Is anyone doing anything?" And that works very well.

If people aren't paying attention, that often means they're not going to do anything anyway, so I ask them by name if they're going to do something and just say, "Jeff, you're not doing anything right?" which is just being considerate and reminding them that they need to stop texting people who aren't in the room. (And I don't make it a habit of playing with people who don't pay attention/care about the game. That's not fun if they're not into it.)

But I find that this second option is much better than someone often saying, "Okay! No one can do anything since 2.6 seconds have passed, and I get a ridiculous amount of awesomeness since I flipped the card over quickly!" Nobody likes that guy, either.

[emillang1000]

Most of my playgroup are relatively heavy Magic players, so we're all fine with going around the table, in order, taking turns, saying whether they'll do something or just pass.

We wait noticeably longer than 2.6 seconds, but since we're all used to allowing players time to think about their actions, we don't mind unless someone is taking a very long time to decide.

[Andrew Hackard]

The "2.6 second" reasonable time rule is really intended for when someone is holding up the game by dithering or not paying attention. If your group is fine giving folks longer to think about their actions, that's totally cool. (That is the sort of thing that it is kind to tell new players, by the way; I've seen some pretty fierce arguments when a "it says 2.6 and it means it" player sits down at a more casual table. It's also kind to be generous about that time limit with new players who really NEED the time to read over their cards.)

And, as I always do, I want to stress that the RULE is "reasonable time," which is something that tables can define for themselves in the majority of cases. If you're in a demo or tournament, then the organizer is in charge of defining reasonable time for that event.