Either Munchkinomicon is horrendously broken, or me and my friends are doing it wrong

[Gillbob316]

So hey, me and my 3 friends I normally play Munchkin with worked Munchkinomicon into our game for the first time today... It started off okay, but boy did it go horribly wrong by the end... and basically turn into the least fun game of Munchkin we ever had.

BASICALLY... the inherant problem at the core of it all was this...

The Munchkinomicon transfers ownership whenever a player discards 3 cards or goes down a level, and both those things can happen at ANY time, and there are no limitations placed on exactly HOW MANY times a player can lure the Munchkinomicon at any given point in the game...

Furthermore, you draw a spell card each time you claim the Munchkinomicon...

Soooooo...

Basically... we were all level 8 or 9ish... and the end of our game just devolved into an endless chain of discarding cards (or occasionally dropping a level) to lure the Munchkinomicon away from one another and prevent eachother from winning. And that went on... and on... and on... and on... and on...

Since the spell deck is reshuffled once used up, if any given player was about to win, we could basically just keep on luring the Munchkinomicon away from one another, seemingly without end, until we pulled a spell that stopped him/her from winning. For instace, the spell which forces the person in combat to run away, or the spell which ressurects the top monster in the discard pile and adds it to the combat, Or maybe the spell which allows you to look at everyone's hand and take and use a one shot item from each player, that could occasionaly screw things up, when used on the right items.

Furthermore, the bookmark spell and the spell which causes the Munchkinomicon to return to you would constantly come back into play, which made it even easier to keep the spells flying.

And basically, we'd KEEP ON doing that, over and over and over... until any person who otherwise would have won the game was... eventually unrecoverably screwed, and would escape or flee the combat... and then we'd move on to the next turn, where the process would begin anew.

Furthermore if at any point the +5 bonus from the Munchkinomicon itself was enough to make or break a fight for someone, we could just keep luring it back and forth endlessly (I discard 3 and take it from him so he's losing. He discards 3 and takes it back so he's winning again. I discard 3 so he's losing again. And so on in that fashion. OH and every time that happened, another spell got thrown into play, sometimes prolonging the process.)

Furthermore every time we'd get crap spells, which were of no use to anyone at the time, that just gave us one more card to discard, and power the ability to steal the Munchkinomicon back.

Now at this point one may be saying...

"Well, that's perfectly within the rules, and you just have to keep doing it until everyone runs out of cards to discard."

Here's the thing...

That point would never come.

When the game is nearing its end... and everyone has been building up their arsenal for 8 or 9 levels already... and you have 3 people banding together, discarding to screw just 1... there is virtually NEVER a point at which there aren't 3 more cards to discard SOMEWHERE on the table. And as I said, each time someone pulls a useless spell, they just gained 1 more to discard. And as I said, the bookmark spell, and the spell which allows you to take the Munchkinomicon back from another player, made it even easier to keep the Munchkinomicon flying around. And if all else failed, and there were no cards to discard (which never actually happened, but I'm just saying it for the sake of arguement) Someone would just drop a level to do it...

And all the discarded items and dropping of levels, basically just made it so the game progress continuously rewound itself...

So...

Basically yeah... like I said, our game just devolved to a point where everyone was just discarding... everything... to lure the Munchkinomicon across the table, get more spells, and keep everyone else from winning.

And it never ended.

And then eventually... the game had gone on way too long, everyone was in a pissy mood, and more or less gave up, because it wasn't fun anymore...

There were 4 or 5 moments where in any other game of munchkin, the person SHOULD have won... but stealing the book repeatedly would inevitably prevent their win in this game... by forcing a run away, or adding more monsters to the combat... so those people felt robbed of a win by BS game mechanics...

Eventually I ended up winning because I was fighting a level 3 monster, no one had any cards to play against me anymore, and the other players just refused to steal the Munchkinomicon from one another anymore (even though they could have) to end the game.

So they were pissy that it went on for so long and not only did they not win, but they hadn't been having fun for quite some time. I was pissy because even though I won, no one was having a good time anymore, and I really only won because everyone else gave up on the game...

And it really just... didn't work out for anyone.

And basically, I said to them, "Well I'm gonna go check the Munchkin forums to see if anyone else has encountered this problem and complained, and if no one has, I'm gonna complain."

And here we are...

So...

As I said in the title, either Munchkinomicon is horrendously broken, or me and my friends are doing it wrong.

Either of which is... entirely possible.

Does anyone have any insight to offer on this? Is there some sort of rule we missed, which should have been enforced the whole time, thus preventing this... horribly long, unfun game from ever happening?

Because I, we, they... really like the basic idea behind Munchkinomicon... and I feel it could be fun, heck, it WAS fun at the beginning of the game... but its lack of limitations pretty much lead to... an endless game.

Where are only options became: Don't steal the book anymore and give up (which is what we went with) or continue dropping items and levels to steal the book, stop any potential wins, and... keep the game going forever... because our levels and item pools kept on... rewinding themselves.

And while some people might THINK they enjoy a lengthy game... I think everyone eventually has their limit. And we all hit that limit.

So I'm... truth be told... HOPING... severely... that someone can tell me some more rules we should have been enforcing the whole time to stop this... endless... Munchkinry

:/

[bonetm]

Which expansion(s) were you playing with?

[RevBob]

I'm gonna zero in on one specific thing:

Originally Posted by Gillbob316

"Well, that's perfectly within the rules, and you just have to keep doing it until everyone runs out of cards to discard."

Here's the thing...

That point would never come.

Mathematically, it MUST. You're discarding three cards to move one and draw one. That still takes the cards in play and in hands down by two with each cycle.

Originally Posted by Gillbob316

When the game is nearing its end... and everyone has been building up their arsenal for 8 or 9 levels already... and you have 3 people banding together, discarding to screw just 1...

I hope that by that last part you mean that two people are each giving an item to a third, who takes those two cards and adds one of his own to discard a total of three cards and summon the M'con. Otherwise - if you're talking about people giving other cards to another player, or some sort of joint discard from multiple hands - that is indeed Doing It Wrong.

Originally Posted by Gillbob316

And as I said, each time someone pulls a useless spell, they just gained 1 more to discard.

And they lost three cards to get that one. Yes, that can go on for a while, but it's ultimately unsustainable.

Originally Posted by Gillbob316

And if all else failed, and there were no cards to discard (which never actually happened, but I'm just saying it for the sake of arguement) Someone would just drop a level to do it...

Levels aren't infinite, either. At some point, there's just no more you can afford to sacrifice, and you're back at level one with no cards. It's pretty hard to come back from that.

Originally Posted by Gillbob316

Basically yeah... like I said, our game just devolved to a point where everyone was just discarding... everything... to lure the Munchkinomicon across the table, get more spells, and keep everyone else from winning.

And it never ended.

I wouldn't characterize that as a game fault. Sometimes you just have to admit defeat; I'd much rather concede one game and start a second than drag the first one out all night long.

Originally Posted by Gillbob316

So I'm... truth be told... HOPING... severely... that someone can tell me some more rules we should have been enforcing to stop this... endless... Munchkinry

The one thing that looks really suspicious to me is that "group sacrifice" thing you alluded to, which I addressed above. I just haven't been in any games where all the other players were willing to toss all their cards and drop down to level one to stop a level nine player from winning. I mean, even if you go that far, all the would-be winner has to do is wait for his next turn, as the competition has conveniently taken itself out of the race.

[Gillbob316]

Ummmmmm...

Pretty much all of them.

All the basic Munchkin ones that is. None of the sub-games like Star Munchkin or Cthulu or Booty... etc.

Here's a list of what we had going...

Munchkin 1-6 (And we had replaced old cards with new versions from Munchkin: Go Up a Level)
Munchkin 7: More Good Cards (IE. The old Munchkin 7)
Fairy Dust
Munchkinomicon
Marked for Death
Both Santa Packs
The cards from Munchkin Dice, Kill-O-Meter & Boxes of Holding
A (very) small selection of Misc Promo Cards
AND one 2011 Munchkin Coin, using the March rules, which never came into play anyway, so it doesn't matter :P

About the only thing we didn't have was the NEW version of Munchkin 7 "Cheat with both hands", and its booster set "Monster Enhancers" because we just haven't bought them yet and replaced "More Good Cards".

Santas, Portals and the Sparkly Good Fairy were shuffled toward the top half of the deck. Everything else was shuffled normally.

Oddly enough, not a Single Fairy Dust card ever went into play because no one ever had reason to help anyone else. (Though the Munchkinomicon cards got reused about 6 dozen times. :P)

...


We pretty much use everything every time we play. It leads to a... VAST difference in the variety of cards from game to game... but It's never been a problem before. We usually don't get through even 1/3rd of the deck before someone wins. This time is no exception, we didn't even get through 1/3rd of the deck overall...

But, like I said, that may be because we more or less just gave up on the game after... way too many exchanges of the Munchkinomicon prolonging things.

[Gillbob316]

Originally Posted by RevBob

I'm gonna zero in on one specific thing:Mathematically, it MUST. You're discarding three cards to move one and draw one. That still takes the cards in play and in hands down by two with each cycle.

You're assuming the only a new cards that came into play were the spells that got added each time the Munchkinomicon changed hands, which wasn't the case. Every time a turn began there was a standard drawing of cards (some of which were monsters to battle, some of which weren't) Furthermore, the pool of loot which was in-play was GIGANTIC because of the Munchkinomicon spell which allows a doubling of loot. This was at one point used to gain 10 pieces of loot by me, and at another point used to gain 14 pieces of loot by another player. I'm aware that mathmatically, if you continue to discard 3 cards to gain 1, a point much be reached where there are no cards left... but in a game with as much variation and chaos as this one, it's entirely plausible that that point might never come.

Originally Posted by RevBob

I hope that by that last part you mean that two people are each giving an item to a third, who takes those two cards and adds one of his own to discard a total of three cards and summon the M'con. Otherwise - if you're talking about people giving other cards to another player, or some sort of joint discard from multiple hands - that is indeed Doing It Wrong.

No, you're misinterpreting what I said. (Sorry for my unclear wording). I only mean that the three people not winning the game were banding together to stop the 4th person from winning. There was no excanging or pooling of cards taking place.

I only meant that if person A is trying to win, and Person's B, C & D have 30 cards in play each... there is no shortage of cards for persons B, C & D to discard to keep person A from winning. The Munchkinomicon can potentially change hands 30 times, and that's NOT taking into account cards like "Summon the Book" or "Book Mark" which only prolong the process... OR any of the times it changes hands BACK to person A, and he plays a spell which might further complicate matters, OR any times a curse might be played to tae the M'con OR any more cards which might potentially be introduced through random wacky gameplay mechanics. Furthermore, the M'con doesn't NEED to change hands 30 times to prevent person A from winning. It's usually far far far less than that, and then the turn might pass on to person B, wherin any number of additional cards might be introduced through other gameplay mechanics.

Person B might kick the door down, find nothing but a monster enchancer, then proceed to loot the room for a second card. And so on in that fashion...

If it were just a constant 3 to 1 ratio at all times, what you say would be true, but new cards are being introduced to this game ALL the time, in way which have nothing to do with the Munchkinomicon... and ALL those cards can be used to FUEL the Munchkinomicon.

Originally Posted by RevBob

And they lost three cards to get that one. Yes, that can go on for a while, but it's ultimately unsustainable.

Yes, but as I've already explained... the number of cards gained to cards lost isn't always so cut and dry. And while it should THEORETICALLY... always have an end... At the point you've gone through several HUNDRED cards to reach that point (if it ever comes) the game has grown rather unfun and tiresome regardless.

Originally Posted by RevBob

Levels aren't infinite, either. At some point, there's just no more you can afford to sacrifice, and you're back at level one with no cards. It's pretty hard to come back from that.

But at THAT point... if everyone has dropped back to level 1 and everyone has sacrificed all their items to keep the Munchkinomicon flying around the game has in essence, restarted. Which just makes it even LONGER. Everyone crawls back to level 8 or 9, and the Munchkinomicon swapping begins anew. (As I said in my first post, this never actually happened, because no one ever actually ran out of cards to sacrifice.)

Originally Posted by RevBob

I wouldn't characterize that as a game fault. Sometimes you just have to admit defeat; I'd much rather concede one game and start a second than drag the first one out all night long.

One person might be willing to concede defeat at any given point, but you'd be amazed how hard it can be to get 4 people who are all on the brink of winning to agree to fold to one another at any given point in the game.

And yes, eventually, folding is kind of what happened to our game. As I said, the game only ended when the other players refused to keep taking the Munchkinomicon from one another... and basically... let me win. But it took a LONG time to get there, and no one was completely happy to end the game that way... we were all just very tired of playing a game which... lost its fun LONG beforehand. The other players were unhappy to essentially give up when they still had options. (The alternative being... a game that never ends). I was unhappy to win in a scenario where the other players felt forced to give up. We were all unhappy that it had gone on for SO long and come to such an unsatisfying ending.

Originally Posted by RevBob

The one thing that looks really suspicious to me is that "group sacrifice" thing you alluded to, which I addressed above. I just haven't been in any games where all the other players were willing to toss all their cards and drop down to level one to stop a level nine player from winning. I mean, even if you go that far, all the would-be winner has to do is wait for his next turn, as the competition has conveniently taken itself out of the race.

Again, no one was pooling cards. That never happened. Just have some wires crossed in my wording. Sorry. :P

As for the second part, no one ever actually dropped ALL their levels or tossed ALL their cards, they just dropped enough to stop player A from winning.

We barely even dropped any levels, I think there was only 1 dropped the whole game. There were MORE than enough cards in play (and continuously coming into play) to keep prolonging the process.

But no one person ever needed to use ALL their cards to stop player A. The spell deck is so small, you could basically just exchange the book 2 to 3 times (if that) to stop Player A, and at that point, a new turn started, and oh boy... here come more cards. The spell deck would soon get reshuffled, and the same cards which stopped the last player would come right back to stop the next one.

No one ever had to sacrifice so much that they were "out of the race" Everyone was always on the brink of winning. Exchaning the M'con anywhere from 1 to 3 times was usually enough to stop one player from winning and move onto the next. Again, there were more than enough cards in play (and continuing to come into play) to keep the process sustained.

Theoretically we should eventually have run out of cards. But the line between theory and reality isn't always so cut and dry... especially in a game with mechanics as... unpredictable, as this one.

[Palmer]

Originally Posted by Gillbob316

I only meant that if person A is trying to win, and Person's B, C & D have 30 cards in play each...

That right there is your problem - the game should never even approach that level.

Furthermore, the pool of loot which was in-play was GIGANTIC because of the Munchkinomicon spell which allows a doubling of loot. This was at one point used to gain 10 pieces of loot by me, and at another point used to gain 14 pieces of loot by another player.

Sounds like the game is taking too long as well. It takes time to get all the way through the spell deck, let alone twice.

Here's the real question though... why didn't anybody stop you from getting 10+ treasures? If people can stop the win, they should stop these kinds of fights that basically set one up for life.
If they can't stop you from getting these 10+ treasures, then they shouldn't be able to stop you from winning.

Finally, even after you all spend 30+ cards to stop someone... now you're all that much weaker, and the next guy should be able to win. There's no way you can replenish the cards that easily.

[Gillbob316]

Originally Posted by Palmer

That right there is your problem - the game should never even approach that level.

30 was just a number I pulled out of my butt to create a hypothetical example... it should not be taken literally. I have no idea how many cards each of us had in play. I didn't count. All I'm saying it was enough to keep facilitating the exchange of the Munchkinomicon.

I will however point out that if a player has 5 cards in their hand, 2 races + Half-Breed, 2 classes + Super Munchkin, A steed, A hireling, A piece of headgear, a piece of armor, a piece of footwear & at least 1 weapon

That's already 17 cards. Before any misc small items, inactive items or 1-shot items even come into the picture.

These cards add up way quicker than you realize they do.

NO we did not ALL have ALL those things... but we all had a similar sampling of items, and AGAIN those items were MORE than enough.

Originally Posted by Palmer

Sounds like the game is taking too long as well.

Yeah, that's... kindof my entire point.

Originally Posted by Palmer

It takes time to get all the way through the spell deck, let alone twice.

I don't mean this in a hostile way toward you, so please, forgive my crude wording... It's just the only way I can think to accurately word my response to this sentance: Bulllllllllllllllllll crap.

We reshuffled the spell deck... enough times to lose count.

It's only 14 cards, and that's assuming the deck is full (which it NEVER was)

If each person is holding as few as 2 spells (which was frequently the case, with so many spells being in play) the deck is only 6 cards. If those 6 cards are face down and there's no discard pile when someone plays bookmark, they just cut through half the deck. (Yes. It happened. More than once.)

When they're kept in play on a steady rotation, it's not hard at all to go through the spell deck... several times. Especially since two of the cards (bookmark and summon the book) just lead to the distribution of MORE spell cards.

Originally Posted by Palmer

Here's the real question though... why didn't anybody stop you from getting 10+ treasures? If people can stop the win, they should stop these kinds of fights that basically set one up for life.
If they can't stop you from getting these 10+ treasures, then they shouldn't be able to stop you from winning.

A) It was earlier in the game, so it didn't seem AS critical at the time.

B) There's a spell that allows a person to double the amount of treasures they recieve after a combat has been resolved. If the person wasn't able to gain the win off the combat, people tended to save their "screw over" cards to prevent someone who WOULD be able to get the win. At the point that the win has already been secured, the spell would be played, the treasures would be doubled, and there wouldn't be a whole heck of alot they could do anymore.

I beat 1 monster that awarded 4 treasures. Letting me get the win didn't seem THAT critical to them. BUT... I had a card which allowed me 1 additional treasure. I also played the spell and doubled that to 10.

Originally Posted by Palmer

Finally, even after you all spend 30+ cards to stop someone... now you're all that much weaker, and the next guy should be able to win. There's no way you can replenish the cards that easily.

Again but we never GOT to the point where we ALL (or even one of us) SPENT 30 cards to stop someone. It usually didn't take NEARLY that many.

The Munchkinomicon would need to change hands 1, maybe 2 or 3 times before a spell presented itself to stop a win. That's a maximum of 9 cards if no one has a curse or "Summon the Book" card to get it faster. Less if they do.

... I've gotta tell you, I came here looking for help... explained the situation with as much detail as I possibly could... and I'm getting a little PO'ed that people are seemingly trying to disprove that a game like this could ever happen.

It DID happen. It HAS happened.

It sucked so much that we're leery about ever playing with Munchkinomicon again, because we can see no reason it wouldn't just happen EVERY TIME we play. (Your response might be: Well then don't play with Munchkinomicon. As simple as that solution sounds... we'd really like to make Munchkinomicon work... even if we have to nerf it into the ground with our own house rules, which seems like the best option on the horizon at this point.)

...

But seriously. TRY IT.

Play a game. Play it normally until you get to the point when people have a potential win setup. Whenever someone is about to win the game, and there is seemingly no other way to prevent it: All other players, Do anything and everything you can to continuously exchange the Munchkinomicon amongst one another repeatedly. Discard cards. Any cards. USEFUL cards. Your race. Your class. Anything you have. Yes you can prioritize, and naturally use your best judgement when discarding. But ultimately, don't be afraid to discard anything, because no matter how useful your cards are, if that person WINS it doesn't matter anymore. You'll never GET to use them.

Do that until your acquired spell cards prevent that person from winning.

Repeat on each potential winning player until it's your turn. Then watch the other three players do it to you.

The game will drag on much, much, much, much, much, much longer than you would ever have imagined possible. And you WILL NOT run out of cards NEARLY as quickly as you'd think you would.

As I've said a few times now, we never even actually ran out of cards... we more or less just gave up.

[MunchkinMan]

Originally Posted by Gillbob316

30 was just a number I pulled out of my butt to create a hypothetical example... it should not be taken literally.

Then why state it as if it was literally so? How are we supposed to know you're making up numbers or providing hypothetical information if you don't say so from the start?

I need to have an hour (which I don't have right now) to read the original post, since it's so long, but for now, I'm closing the thread because in scanning through it, I'm seeing some overt hostility starting to leak through in some posts. And, quite frankly, there's already way too much to read in this thread without potentially more added on in the next few hours before I can come back to this.

[MunchkinMan]

I'm not sure what to add to what's already been said. Playtesting probably should have shown similar situations occur with greater frequency if this was a big problem. I'll have to see what Andrew says about internal playtesting while I hunt down my notes (and comments from other playtesters) to see what was said there. However, this could come down to style, so it's possible that most of us play with people who will concede defeat a lot sooner than your group.

[MunchkinMan]

I found one note of interest: One group felt that 3 cards was too much to sacrifice, so they didn't use that option often. . .