Munchkin Tournament Help

[robotrevolution]

Originally Posted by MunchkinMan

Having run a Munchkin table of 10 players, I can tell you that 8 is the absolute most I will ever allow, ever again. Adding the idea of multiple players playing at the same time is just going to make it way too confusing, and I honestly don't think this is going to work. I guess what I'm trying to say is, if you really like pandemonium and mayhem, why not just take a bunch of kindergarteners to play paintball?

What do you think about using the sphere of influence idea to reduce the number of active players, while still allowing everyone to participate? When players are killed, they're out, so the spheres would change over the course of the tournament.

[MunchkinMan]

I don't like modifying the rules too much to accommodate too extreme a variation, and I especially don't like violating an inviolable rule (NOTHING takes you below Level 1). Removing a player who dies once they've reached a certain level is fine, but death can come unexpectedly early to a Level 1 or 2 player through nothing more than dumb luck. And, the sphere of influence is an interesting concept, but what about the players across from you? Hell, if you're going with sphere of influence, why not just break it up into tables of 6 and be done with it?

All I can really say is that I've run a fair number of tourneys over the years, and if you can get everyone together at once and run a few-swiss style rounds (probably best in your situation, and definitely good for a 1-day event), or have to have a number of qualifiers over the course of a weekend followed by semi-final rounds and a final game (much better for a 3-4 day long convention). These seem to work best and provide the best opportunity for everyone to have a good time and feel they were given a fair shot of winning.

[Nixel]

Originally Posted by MunchkinMan

I don't like modifying the rules too much to accommodate too extreme a variation, and I especially don't like violating an inviolable rule (NOTHING takes you below Level 1). Removing a player who dies once they've reached a certain level is fine, but death can come unexpectedly early to a Level 1 or 2 player through nothing more than dumb luck.

I could just imagine this... in the starting hands, someone gets a "Curse, Lose a level", and a player is instantly removed from the game before it starts.

Random luck of cards is one thing, but inevitably, something like this is bound to happen.

[GruntOfKis]

There about 4-9 cards that lower level and cause death. there few chance this will happen.

Originally Posted by robotrevolution

What do you think about using the sphere of influence idea to reduce the number of active players, while still allowing everyone to participate? When players are killed, they're out, so the spheres would change over the course of the tournament.

about the sphere of influence it mostly answer here

Originally Posted by MunchkinMan

1. What happens if one of the active turns laps another? If you don't allow turns to move until all the current active turns are completed, how do you combat bordedom of the player who has to wait for his turn to happen because he's ready to go (the previous player had a fast turn), and one of the other active turns is in the middle of an epic battle. You can't guarantee that everyone's going to be interested in a battle they can't influence (i've seen it happen in 3- and 4-player games, so don't tell me it's less likely in a 30-player game).
2. How many cards are you thinking you're going to use?

I can see someone wait 20-40mins before he able to play a card use sphere of influence.

Time is another factor. 6 player take 1 hour to fins. there was 20 player that should be a 4 hour game. sphere of influence does not change this. They play for 10mins and they wait 10mins doing nothing, and that if all player can play their turn with same pace.