Member House Rules

[Progmode]

Originally Posted by Mylon

I never gave any cards to that thief. But the other 4 players were more than happy to see me taken down. Then he started going for them.

I don't mean to butt in, but it sounds like less of a balance issue and more of a group dynamic issue. I suspect they won't be as willing to give cards away like that again.

[Mylon]

Originally Posted by Progmode

I don't mean to butt in, but it sounds like less of a balance issue and more of a group dynamic issue. I suspect they won't be as willing to give cards away like that again.

I'd still call it a balance issue. Warrior: Discard 1 card for a +1 temporary bonus. Thief: Discard 1 card for a 50% chance of a lasting +3 or better bonus (oh, and you're hurting your opponents at the same time).

[MunchkinMan]

Warriors have a permanent +1 that costs nothing: They win ties.

I am going to suggest that arguing about balance is of no use. I will contend that most people see a lack balance where I see lack of experience. In truth, you described a situation where everyone fed the Thief and now the class is suddenly unbalanced. The problem is, people kept the Thief stocked with cards. That's, as progmode said, a group dynamic issue, not a balance issu. You keep the Thief in check by not giving him cards.

[Mylon]

Originally Posted by MunchkinMan

Warriors have a permanent +1 that costs nothing: They win ties.

I am going to suggest that arguing about balance is of no use. I will contend that most people see a lack balance where I see lack of experience. In truth, you described a situation where everyone fed the Thief and now the class is suddenly unbalanced. The problem is, people kept the Thief stocked with cards. That's, as progmode said, a group dynamic issue, not a balance issu. You keep the Thief in check by not giving him cards.

Well, the fact that everyone gave him cards made him stupidly powerful, but I'm arguing that even only getting 2 cards per turn is very powerful (2 door cards, or 2 treasure cards, therabouts).

[Mylon]

Another rule I'm considering is allowing players to draw 2 door cards during the search the room phase. This gives more liklihood of having the fun backstab cards on hand, being able to play curses on other players, and otherwise more likely to have a race/class card to use.

[mehrkat]

I posted before for suggestions how to alter a Munchkin game to allow for only two players to play effectively. This is mainly to allow me to play with my son effectively.

I've finally narrowed down what my issue is. It is the early levels or more precisely level 1. If you are level 1 and none of your treasures add a bonus or if you lose the bonus you become unable to defeat a level 1 monster and therefore unable to access treasure cards which is where the vast number of bonuses are and it becomes a vicous cycle that can't be overcome. If it was a 3 player game then there would be a certain amount of teamwork and so if you were level one and another guy were level one you could wheel and deal to get out of it.

I already instituted the level 1 is minimum level so if you aren't above level 1 and you get a lose a level card you stay 1st level with no consequence.

I'm waffling between two choices of additional adjustments to rules to allow the game to go more smoothly and allow some variation in outcome.

Option 1
1. Level 1 monsters are defeated by a level one character even if the character has no bonuses. This is the most conservative change but it means that ONLY level 1 monsters can get you out of your quandry.
2. If a character is level 3 or below and the monster is not a character that doesn't pursue that character's level if you run away the other player MUST assist you in combat. The assist works normally and treasures must be shared. This has the advantage of only assisting lower levels but allowing a lot of outcomes.
3. Both character and monster roll a d3 (1/2 d6 roll rounded down). Difference is added to the higher rolls total. Example player rolls 6 (3 effectively) monster rolls 4 (2 effectively). The player gets an additional plus one to the combat. However, if monster rolled 3 and player rolled 2 then the monster would get an effective +1. The biggest disadvantage to this is that it would slow down combat and change a lot of the dynamic.

Any thoughts.

[worms919]

I rarely play with more than 2 players and can't recall ever having a problem. We usually just start with the fast play rules which gives each player 4 of each card at the begining of the game. There are generally enough goodies in our hands to get the game rolling. Also, at the earlier levels we tend to help each other out in combat, though the helper usually negotiates the majority of the treasures with first pick!

I do like the die rolling idea (Adds a bit of Munchkin Quest Flavor) but according to your rule a player rolling a one would get an effective roll of 0 and the only way to get an effective 3 is to roll a 6. Therefore the rolls are weighted towards effective rolls of 1 (2 or 3) and 2 (4 and 5) Maybe this is what you intended....

Anyway, i really am supposed to be working....

[Cheese8242]

Originally Posted by mehrkat

I already instituted the level 1 is minimum level so if you aren't above level 1 and you get a lose a level card you stay 1st level with no consequence.

I'm waffling between two choices of additional adjustments to rules to allow the game to go more smoothly and allow some variation in outcome.

Option 1
1. Level 1 monsters are defeated by a level one character even if the character has no bonuses. This is the most conservative change but it means that ONLY level 1 monsters can get you out of your quandry.
2. If a character is level 3 or below and the monster is not a character that doesn't pursue that character's level if you run away the other player MUST assist you in combat. The assist works normally and treasures must be shared. This has the advantage of only assisting lower levels but allowing a lot of outcomes.
3. Both character and monster roll a d3 (1/2 d6 roll rounded down). Difference is added to the higher rolls total. Example player rolls 6 (3 effectively) monster rolls 4 (2 effectively). The player gets an additional plus one to the combat. However, if monster rolled 3 and player rolled 2 then the monster would get an effective +1. The biggest disadvantage to this is that it would slow down combat and change a lot of the dynamic.

Any thoughts.

First, level 1 has always been a minimum level. You can never go below level 1 whether you make it a rule or not.

As for the others, if they work for you then I would go with it.

I have personally never had a problem getting past level 1 in a 2 player game. Even when not getting any treasure that can help. We have always played friendly in a two player game, at least until everyone has gained a level or two. Only then have we gotten cut throat.

[MunchkinMan]

Originally Posted by mehrkat

I already instituted the level 1 is minimum level so if you aren't above level 1 and you get a lose a level card you stay 1st level with no consequence.

Could you please quote what implies that there is a consequence to that? I mean, the rules directly tell you that nothing can make a character or Monster go below Level 1, so I'm a little confused. Of course, one's combat strength could go below 1 if you're cursed or somehow receive a penalty in the current combat. If that's what you were referring to, then you mis-spoke your intentions.

[mehrkat]

Originally Posted by MunchkinMan

Could you please quote what implies that there is a consequence to that? I mean, the rules directly tell you that nothing can make a character or Monster go below Level 1, so I'm a little confused. Of course, one's combat strength could go below 1 if you're cursed or somehow receive a penalty in the current combat. If that's what you were referring to, then you mis-spoke your intentions.

The first few times I played if you lost a level at 1 you went to level zero. It sounds like that was just my misread of the rules.

There are several cards that say things like "trap lose a footgear or a level player choice" I just meant if you were already at level 1 no consequence ie you don't lose the footgear either to help support the very beginning of the game.

On the die rolling thing. I did weight the middle +1 or +2 on purpose. I haven't tried out some of the changes yet I wanted to see if others had tried similar things.

I might try the quick start rules (double starting cards) and it sounds like the early level team combats are similar to your (play friendly early) alteration but putting it in a standard rule format to force it along.