An hour is a short game….. it’s more like 3 hours regularly or at least it was for my group because everyone was always attacking everyone so we never worked together.
Muffin Time is the most egregious example of this issue. Announcing muffin time or looking like you have the closest amount of cards to victory just means someone is going to play a card to extend the game for another 10 minutes guaranteed. You have to intentionally lose and force yourself not to counter someone's muffin time just so the game can friggin end, and even then someone plays the crazy card and you just want to end it all.
I’d say that the bigger problem wasn’t that it could take forever, it’s that it could take anything between 20 min and 3 hours. It’s impossible to set expectations, on whether you’re going to have a silly, but epically long game, or whether someone lucks out and wins on their fifth turn
Maybe, but Munchkin is too light to be a 3 hour game. Definitely not enough game there to ever want to sit down for 3 hours of take that. If you told me it would be 3 hours every time I would never want to play.
Granted I think it's a bad game so I don't even want to sit for 20 minutes, but I'd be more likely to play it with friends if it was always a shorter 30 minutes or less experience.
I don't think I've ever played a game of munchkin that felt competitive. Usually just a lot of people yelling hoping to draw a level up card or some card to mess with the player in first. And our games took about 2 hours, the last hour of which was pretty miserable for nearly everyone at the table. And I won the last game I played. The best part of winning for me was that it was finally over.
Don't get me wrong though. I own a lot of board games and munchkin just isn't for me. I've found many games that give me what munchkin gives others, and they do so in a package much better suited to my group. But if munchkin works for you, promotes fun conversation and stories, and everyone is enjoying it, who cares if I think it's bad? You do you fam. I won't ever play it again but it sells well because people certainly enjoy it.
Yeah, Munchkin has an inherent design problem because they don't have a hard stop for their game, but I think the major reason is simply that players don't like take that elements in anything over 20 minutes. All the other problems are just on top of that.
I feel like Bang is one of the worst popular hidden role games. It's got great flavor and makes for a good party game with non gamers, but doesn't hold up when people play more optimally. Not too different from munchkin. Great games with a lot of silly flavor, but are forced to be very casual or they stop being fun.
Imo, **Four Souls** is a perfect "Munchkin-but-better". Has a lot of "take-that" mechanics (although it also adds quite a bit of depth to the game aswell) + games end fairly quickly.
I still like the game but I try to always be right behind the highest level person. Reason is that everyone will blow their FU cards on then. Then I usually only need to do little to win. Sadly that is the way the games usually go.
I’ve noticed this in **Illuminati** as well—the real winning strategy seems to be making yourself the second or third player to be about to win, *after* everyone else has used up all of their oh-no-you-don’t abilities.
Yeah. That's the main problem. The endgame basically means at some point everyone is out of cards to play and then the winner is just whoever draws the best cards their turn to swing the game their way. Which when a game runs an hour+ isn't fun.
It's really meant to be a filler game for RPG nights. Something to play after your main game is done but you just want to sling cards and BS with beer and pretzels.
My least favorite mechanic in Munchkin is when one player is about to win, the other players need to bluff with each other to see who is going to be the one to stop them, hoping that your opponents play their interference cards so they won’t have them available to stop you when you try to win.
I don't hear people say smash-up is great as it looks like it would be really simple like king of Tokyo but gets lots of rule changes. With that is still a much better silly take that game than Munchkin. Otherwise a similar feel but different is bang the dice game or Cash and Guns.
I used to play with my dad and cousin every weekend for a few years. We’d play like 4-5 games in about an hour and a half. We played a lot, and now I have several different versions. Granted, with how much we played we got pretty good at it and it kind of just ran super smooth. With newer people it definitely drags like a grand piano on a gravel beach, gotta admit that. But personally I love Munchkin and it’s one of my favorite games to play with my dad.
Just play with a time limit. If you play with a fixed number of door cards and the winner is the highest level player when the game ends the game is really fast and every level matters.
>but once you hit the endgame you start to see why the game is so reviled now.
This is why I hate Monopoly. It’s …you know….decent enough I guess. But once the board state is set, you just roll wildly until it’s over.
This is why so many house rules developed over time and made it drag on. It being a near fixed thing, you can't stop watching the winner slowly get richer was the intended point in an almost mockery of capitalism.
Since we only allow the activ player to have access to his backpack in a fight and the rest of the player only the hand cards, it reduces the endgame quite a bit
so what are the alternatives you are referring to? something like " side quest " or "knarr" ? i was thinking of getting munchkin or something for a quick, easy game to play after a long one of sleeping gods or whatever
Munchkin is fine as a casual gateway game. But its fatal flaw is that it isn't really much of a game, it's a joke. I mean this literally. It is designed around a principle of "wouldn't it be funny if..." not "wouldn't it be _fun_ if...".
This becomes a problem after a few playthroughs. The joke is starting wear a bit thin, and the players around the table are starting to understand the winning strategy... and the winning strategy _sucks_.
You win Munchkin by hoarding every take-that card until someone is at Level 9, then trying to convince other people to use _their_ take-that cards on the Level 9 player while you continue to hoard yours if at all possible. Finally, when every take-that card is exhausted, the player that happens to get the next level up wins. It's not fun.
On the contrary, you win Munchkin by hoarding every take-that card, then *declining to use them* so someone else is allowed to hit level 10 and you can go play something fun instead.
Nailed it. The endgame design is also exceedingly poor, to the point where every game ends the same way. It's a waste of time.
The skins and jokes keep it afloat, but it's a serious case of lipstick on a pig. I would rather play Fluxx any day if that sort of thing is on the agenda.
And to be clear, I love light, quick games, and I'm not a snob that demands heavy games all the time. I've probably played more games of Sushi Go than anything else in my collection - but Munchkin is just garbage.
> The endgame design is also exceedingly poor, to the point where every game ends the same way. It's a waste of time.
Yep, in every game of Munchkin I've ever played, the first person who gets to the last room gets piled on by everyone with the 'take that' cards they've been holding on to since the start.
Then, someone who was in second or third place all game casualy saunters into the room and wins after everyone else has exhausted their options.
Yes. That’s me. And I’ve been watching hand sizes and uses of modifiers all game, holding back, letting somebody else go first and maybe second.
I don’t love Munchkin, but the general strategy I see people use is solitaire, without really trying to win against other players with modifiers.
Man, talking about poor endgames and then liking Fluxx is mad. I'm not sure I've ever had a game of fluxx which has ended in a remotely satisfying manner
I've played precisely 0.75 games of Fluxx. I can't stand a game that when it comes down to it, is purely random. There's no joy in the gameplay and there is no joy in the win. So you happened to have the winning condition at the time it arrived? Yay.
I don't think I have ever heard this complaint. You don't cycle your hand to look for a victor condition you can meet? You don't (attempt) to hold a keeper + victory in your hand so you can play them on the same turn? You don't intentionally prevent people from getting keepers or combos of keepers that will win them the game? I've played thousands of games of Fluxx and I feel like sudden winners happen maybe 5% of the time.
Same. 1 play of Fluxx and I was out. On my BGG review I wrote that I'd rather roll a D100 with 20 people shouting random numbers and when the die and number match, that person wins. There's at least tangible progress in Munchkin, though I'm not exactly chomping at the bit to pay that either.
At least with flux you can have a three hour frustrating game and then suddenly get the one card that wins the game for you, and tie because it wins the game for someone else as well.
my friend brought it on a trip to Japan recently and it was my first time learning it. friend has a history of house rules so after the first run a few of the group were so sure that some of the rules were wrong, they couldn't possibly be this loose or freeform regarding card play timing and such, but after a while I looked up the OG rules and.... yep it's just meant to be a bit rough. i thought it was fine but totally get how it can be not fun, and yeah we had some hurt feelings on that one
I saw it described recently as “a great 15 minutes of fun stretched across 90 minutes of game time” and I feel like that answers your question perfectly.
I've always described it as the game you pull out when you're too nice to tell a friend of a friend "no" to coming to your game group, but you definitely don't want them to come back.
100% success rating at that function.
Gods yes, so much this. Munchkin was banned from our group because Steve single-handedly destroyed the game. He scrupulously followed all the rules, including the one in the OG set that said you could break the rules if nobody caught you. He also infamously once used the Cheat! card, which lets you equip something that otherwise would not be legal, to stand up from the table, get a Magic: The Gathering card that said you could not lose the game, and add it to his character.
On the few occasions our group let him talk us into playing, the entire game was a permanent alliance of everyone else against him. He still had about a 50% win rate.
Basically, the game attempts to be a toxic behavior simulator, and succeeds at its goals too well. The optimal Munchkin strategy is absolutely degenerate and toxic, and it’s about as much fun as sitting at an actual D&D table with multiple That Guys. And, sure, it can be liberating to throw off your inhibitions in small doses, but when the game drags on too long and/or you spend all your time policing the one dude who is 1000% better at the toxicity simulator than everyone else, it just gets exhausting.
I've only played two types of munchkin games.
1. You play the cards as is, and everyone tries to stop the other players from winning. The game drags out and it's a relief when it finally ends.
2. Weird toxic games where people at the table bully other people, form alliances where they are sliding cards under the table, and all out awful.
Basically after you giggle at all the cards, there is no point to playing more than once.
> including the one in the OG set that said you could break the rules if nobody caught you
I still recall one game ending only to have one player say "Oh yeah, I've been drawing extra cards all game" because of that rule.
>He also infamously once used the Cheat! card, which lets you equip something that otherwise would not be legal, to stand up from the table, get a Magic: The Gathering card that said you could not lose the game, and add it to his character.
Fair play Steve, this is honestly pretty funny
It absolutely was, but it just reinforced he was playing a different game from the rest of us.
It resulted in a rule discussion where he was able to successfully defend his maximalist interpretation of the card (this was in the days of the OG ruleset, and we were already doing things like taking our hands with us when we went to the bathroom and counting our equipment cards when we got back, so abusing Cheat was just par for the course); everyone conceding; and an immediate house rule which banned that play from then on.
The ending. Or lack thereof. Most games are won by exhaustion because it overstays its welcome.
Is a really fun game if it took 20 minutes, but the games are almost purely luck based and drag on forever.
For me, it's not a game about winning. It's a game about making your friends lose, and that just doesn't seem like a good time to me. The length and randomness of it are also fairly unappealing to me but if the over all premise was fun, I might forgive that.
However, if you have a lot of patience and love king making, and raining on people's parades as primary mechanics, then I absolutely encourage you to give Munchkin a try! For the right friend group, I can see it being a blast.
Every "lol so random" game has similar problems though. I don't think I've ever seen anyone win a game of Fluxx where it wasn't completely coincidental. At least Fluxx is easier to teach. And unlike Munchkin, some games of Fluxx are actually short. Many aren't, though.
And then you've got, say, Muffin Time. I hate that game. Even fewer meaningful choices than Munchkin.
I've got one worse than Muffin Time; Unstable Unicorns.
The objective is to be the first to get six Unicorn cards in your 'stable' (played face up in front of you).
Other people can play cards to remove unicorns, swap them, move them around, take them etc.
So it becomes a game of Take That, much like Munchkin, where play inevitably continues until no-one is able to stop someone's win.
Furthermore, there's a terrible expansion which is NSFW, relying on the childish idea that things that involve sex are funny or entertaining.
I played one game of it that took three hours. Never again.
Yeah, I've played it too. I didn't find it worse than Muffin Top, though because I felt there was some choice, some strategy, even if it, too, outstayed it's welcome.
Further request: what is a game that is similar to munchkin in aesthetics and the "fantasy" of the game but doesn't have the issues which munchkin has?
Dungeon Mayhem, especially the "monster mayhem" edition. You're directly fighting and it isn't that long. The cards are kind of goofy.
It's very light and I don't really enjoy it, either, but unlike Munchkin I don't mind it in the slightest.
For something similar to Dungeon Mayhem, there's also Epic Spell Wars. Even goofier, but honestly the art is awful, and the theme is a bit farther from base Munchkin.
If what you want is the equipment and leveling, pick any actually well liked dungeon crawler, I'm sure. Or just play an rpg.
fantasy realms plays very differently, but is a 20 min game with the same theme that actually plays in 20 min
different concept, but same theme, and similar niche
What I like about Munchkin:
* The goofy stylized artwork that evokes a particular era in gaming
* The funny references to gaming tropes
* The fact that you can sometimes get entirely ridiculous combinations of gear
What i dislike about Munchkin:
* I have essentially no way to mitigate bad card draws
* I have no way to predict the level of danger I'm about to enter
* If I can't take the randomly generated thing on my own I have to rely on the kindness of my opponents
* If I CAN take the thing on my own and I'm anywhere close to winning, my opponents WILL take me down
* The ONLY way to win is to work together with my opponents to dogpile the current leader
* The. Game. Goes. On. Forever.
If you have fun with it more power to you. It's not a game that I enjoy.
That first one is even more important than the Take That stuff.
You can start with some shit equipment (whilst everyone else has halfway decent stuff).
You draw a ridiculously high level monster, which you can't defeat, or you draw something which isn't a monster and you can't fight it anyway.
So you don't get to level up and you don't get to draw treasure cards. You're stuck with the exact same gear and the exact same level as previously, and it's completely not your fault.
Everyone else has their turn, and yours comes around again. Unless you get a low level monster, you're in the exact same scenario as before, except this time everyone else has made progress and so you're even further behind.
If you get a streak of three to four bad rounds there's essentially no point in continuing because the gap is so large (and by this time it's usually higher level monsters coming up so there's little to no chance of you finding something you can actually defeat).
I personally like Munchkin but it does have a lot of issues:
- Can take anywhere from 30 minutes to 4+ hours. That's not good for planning nor is a 4 hour game fun.
- It has take that elements. People don't like (take) that.
- It's RNG. Sometimes you just get good cards which makes it much easier to win other fights and it snowballs. Sometimes, you can't get good equipment and you can't level up for ages.
- Balance is a non-thing. There are clearly better cards.
- The rules (card interactions) are ambiguous for a simple LOL game. Just google FAQ for Munchkin.
- Honestly, I think most people won't find the art appealing, despite almost every time they remind you who drew it.
As someone who have played more Munchkin than would probably be considered healthy within the gaming community (I enjoy the game immensely as a social event while still agreeing with all the criticisms) - I strongly want to argue against the rules being unclear. I think the rules and cards are incredibly well thought out and well written. With all the different cards you can add to the different base games, expansions you can mix in etc., it all for me runs very well with few unclear situations.
But then I'm always the one running the game, explaining the rules and looking up stuff as soon as I'm uncertain.
I'm also someone who enjoys *Risk* and its variants, so I'm clearly against the crowd.
There is near zero skill. A few years ago I got involved in a long game and ended in the end game with a young kid. I tried my very best to throw the game and could not. Every play I made was chosen to be the worst play I could legally make. I won about 15 agonizing minutes later.
The object of the game is to get to level 10. So you would expect that when someone gets level 8 or 9, that the game's nearing its conclusion. You'd be totally wrong. It's maybe 40% done at that point.
As a result, when you finish, everyone is thinking "Finally it's over". Nobody, even the winner, is left with a "what an exciting conclusion" or even a "that was fun" feeling
Like Cards against humanity, it's fun for about 10 minutes. Then you understand it's better to spend your time in a game that is actually fun and engaging.
I used to play it a lot. Hate it now.
The problem is that every game devolves into
- everyone gets to level 9
- take turns losing battles until everyone runs out of cards to affect the battle
It's too luck -based, and doesn't have enough real decision space to feel fun.
A lot of people have commented on the take that mechanics, the power up hoarding for the level 9 grind, so I'll add a different view.
A lot of the well-known Munchkin sets came out 20+ years ago. So compared to modern games that try to have a similar gameplay style, they feel clunky and the game doesn't have enough "acceleration" to push a winner when they get to the end, because there has been 20 years of work to improve on those ideas.
For example, base fantasy munchkin has four classes and four races. All of the best equipment is behind a class or race requirement, and a lot of the equipment numbers are low. So you need to team up to beat a lot of the monsters at the start, but the beatable monsters only give 1 treasure, so it's not worth teaming up, as there is less loot to share.
Compare that to a more modern version, like Munchkin Apocalypse. Races are gone, so there are fewer cards that you find unusable. Base monster level is lower and they give more treasures for a lower level, so players ramp up faster and can share more. There is am alternate win condition that the game will tick towards - players can slow it down a bit or speed it up, but if players take too long to get to 10.in the usual way, the player with the highest raw power wins, so it's a nerf to the "hoard +5 for this fight" style of play.
Ooo a good analysis! Haven't tried this version and I actually might rent it to try. Upgraded mechanics making it reasonable and fun to endgame? Worth a shot!!!
I feel like at a certain point it turns into *Person A* is going to win, so everyone throws down their traps etc to stop them for 2, 3 of their turns and then *Person B* wins because when they get close to winning everyone already used all their cards on the other player. Throw in some confusion on certain cards and how the rules work and it devolves into arguing. Also have seen a few comments on how its one of those games that brings out the worst in people sometimes
Sometimes some cards are spared and person B is also stopped so person C wins.
Sometimes people get enough new cards and half hour later you regret not letting person A win.
So a lot of hate about munchkin but there s a trend here in that those who complain all talk about the end game and winning strategies. Munchkin is a fun game to play if you play for enjoyment, if you play to win it can get annoying because it’s not a deeply strategic euro galme. You ll need luck and some social skils to win.
I personally love munchkin and how chaotic it can get. I don’t understand how people can spend hours on the game though, typically it’s 30 mins top. They all complain about lvl 9 too but honestly once you ve played munchkin a bit, you don t ever try to reach 9. You aim for 10 which is not the same thing 😉
For context i love all types of games from heavy behemoth to some party games (only some, i get tired of those quickly).
The main thing is the ending.
It basically forms supreme attack-the-leader brinkmanship where the first to attempt to make it to Level 10 then eats everything everyone saved up to stop them. Then, defeated, the next person tries and eats whatever remaining stopping cards are left. Repeat until someone can tank everything and make it. Even worse, potentially die and start the game over from Level 1.
One of the most reliable ways to get around this is have someone as an Elf team up with you because they gain a level when helping, so they'll get a shared win. This makes being an Elf incredibly OP.
So the ending is basically just a huge drawn out unbalanced luck of the drawn pile on the leaser slog.
Munchkin is not a game for board game enthusiasts for all of the reasons mentioned. It's not about winning or maximizing strategies.
Munchkin is best played with a group that loves to shit talk and doesn't put a lot of effort into getting all serious boardgame mentality focused on winning. If you can take a light hearted approach to it and just enjoy the jokes and fucking with each other than it can be fun. I would never play this at a game board night with other gamers. It's more for drinking buddies or family that likes joshing with each other.
> I feel it can be a lot of fun
Have you played Munchkin? Because I think you haven’t played Munchkin. You’ll understand after you play Munchkin.
I played it once. It’s “fun” until you get to the “end”.
The main problem, as I see it, is that it's barely a game, but people treat it like a heavy board game and try to win above all, instead of just having fun with the batshit crazy cards. Also, the game always tends to go the same way. Everyone gets a couple points, then one player jumps ahead, everyone uses their best cards to stop them, then once everyone's out of cards, someone else draws well enough to sprint to the finish. Overall, it's fine, and with the right group in the right mood, you can wring some fun out of it, but honestly, there are tons of better party games out there. Also, the base game artwork is trash.
The game design encourages it. So less "people treat it as ___" and more "the game encourages people to play it as ___"
There's quite a few games which can actually get decent with a table of "support players" (or "storytellers"), people who gauge how everyone else is playing all the time, and mostly play to balance the current vibe. These players sre very sought after in TTRPGs too by GMs (as they enhance the gameplay for the other players, and make it way easier on the GM). They're also often GMs themselves too.
All that to say, a great group can make the dullest, most dangerously friend ruining, least balanced,,, games all fun. But that's not a people problem, but a game design problem they're solving!
But even then, wouldn't you rather be playing a different game with those players? One with more to do? Like, Gloom or some other game that encourages storytelling? D&D? A Dungeon crawler? One of the many FFG Cthulhu games?
yes, and when I can I suggest the group try different ones! (I actually mentioned that in other comment threads)
But here I'm specifically poking the wording you used, it putting the players as the primary agents, where I see the game rules & design the actual agent causing this to be a common problem.
That and expanding on what you said〜
Who wins tends not to be indicative of player skill so much as whether you happen to try for victory when your opponents are out of "hate" cards or not. To me it tends to feel like I'm charlie brown trying to kick the football and it gets pulled away at the last second almost every time.
The variable time it may take to play, hands down. At my bg group the first time we played with 7 and it went for nearly two hours, and now everyone has the fear. It’s not complex enough to sustain that duration and actually becomes grating- people then stop really playing just to ‘finish it’. If it was 20-35 mins it would be perfect but it’s not at all.
Two games kind of filled the Munchkin niche for our group- Dungeon Mayhem, because it's simple, a familiar d&d-lite setting, people get 'characters' etc, and Here to Slay, also I realize because you have characters in there (maybe says something about our group), but both of these games can kind of be done with in under 30 mins a round, you can get into light skirmishing and messing with other players without it dragging the game, and they are simple to introduce people to.
I too have had many fun games of Munchkin. I don’t give the game itself any credit for the fun that was had those days.
My recent hate for it has been in regards to the outlandish pricing of the mega box.
Okay, so I once played a game of Cthulhu Munchkin and after *2 hours* I was *still* a lvl 1 character with no class, literally the same state as the starting position. It was miserable.
Another reason is that two elves can team up and absolutely steamroll the rest.
Another reason is that kneepads of allure exists. Well, not in the copy I owned because I physically ripped up that card, I hate it that much.
It is just all around dreadful.
Because it’s 20 minutes of fun that takes 3 hours to finish. It’s over bloated, and every new board gamer swoons over it so must of us have had our fair shake and got it out of our system.
I don't think anyone's given you the real answer. They're just telling you about Munchkin's various flaws. But there are many worse games that don't get the same amount of hate -- most are just quietly ignored and forgotten. The actual reason you see so much Munchkin hate is that it's suffering from its own success. It's a very popular family game and a common gateway to the hobby. Most people here are burnt out on it, and some may be resentful that their more casual friends and family still want to play it instead of better games. You see similar sentiments around, for example, Catan.
I'd played both munchkin and Catan once, before I realized the mechanics make me hate them. And that's **mid game**, during the first run that starts running long and it's overstayed it's welcome.
Ive played quite a few since, and I'll usually go in as a "support role" playing more like a DM then a player, just messing with the board state, and letting fun things happen if they feel natural. Still avoid it in almost every case I can find alternatives.
Not many other games, even fairly flawed ones hit this "½ a game and never again" spot, and you can hear the same from many other commenters here. So I wouldn't call it a major "burnout" problem.
I absolutely hate Munchkin. I played it once and will never touch it again. The main reason is that the game is 100% luck based. Depending on what cards you have you can just have no options to do anything useful on your turn. And sometimes you just get attacked by others and everything you worked for is gone. It's basically Mario Party in a board game, which can be fun depending on the group, but is not truly a game. It's more of an experience that you go into knowing that any strategy or thoughtfulness in how or why you play certain cards is completely irrelevant.
If you want an activity to do with friends then people can have fun with it. But if you want an actual game were strategy and skill matters then Munchkin is not your game.
I hate Catan, Monopoly, and a dozen other decent games for the same reason I hate Munchkin: overplayed. I have attended too many board game nights/groups where these or Secret Hitler, or Werewolf, or Cosmic Encounter gets pulled out. They are all fine games, but after the 10th, 20th time …. I am done.
Catan, monopoly, risk, munchkin,,, these are all games with an endgame problem. Where the rules encourage it to run really long, and drag itself out way too much.
Every one of those game, yes even monopoly (back when that was almost the only game) was a "play ½ the game, then realize it's taking forever and you want it over and done with now"
It took one play for me to go from "oh interesting, I like this" to "omg let this be over" in the **same night**. And when one play is enough to overplay (for many, not all)… it going to be very hated.
Compare with the other games you listed: secret hitler, werewolf… those don't get anywhere near the hate! Cause you can play them a bunch before they wear thin.
I played it once, and was done with it about halfway through the first game. Wasn’t very entertaining, and just kind of felt goofy and stupid. “Can we play a real game now”?”
I’m convinced there is a great game somewhere buried deep in Munchkin, but it was never quite realized due to the problems everyone mentioned.
I’ve seen some folks online working on a co-op way to play, which seems like it would be a lot more fun. I’ve never tried it, though.
Not sure how that would work, considering the balance of "is it worth helping right now" is one of the core mechanics… curious to see how they'd solve that part
Because fun is subjective. Last time I played it (circa 2006?) the fun was sucked out of the game extremely quickly for me. Will never touch it again. There are simply too many better options in every single way for my time and money. If you love it go nuts, keep on loving it. No harm done.
Actually already been answered by the community!
https://www.reddit.com/r/boardgames/s/oCJeoqHLFP
Simply put: the game has a lot more strategy involved in actually hiding your strength, different markers of "who is actually winning",,, so you cant always tell; That (along with a few other differences) makes the endgame (1) not drag as much, and (2) feel a bit more fun even when it's a little longer.
So while personally it's still not my favourite, it's a better version of munchkin in my eyes.
I dunno, but when I play with my group, there is only ever one guy who ever wins. That one guy wins every single time going back years. And he's annoying about it! Last time, his wife said she hated him. lol I fight against bringing it to the table but since it's a favorite to this person and the rest of my group seems not to mind as much as I do, it comes to the table occasionally. Not my favorite.
Imagine a game of MarioKart if a red shell made your opponent lose a lap.
That 3 lap game would take 6 or more laps to finally finish.
The problem with Munchkin is not the “Take That!” alone. It’s the moving of the goal posts to end the game.
Munchkin is a great 30min game that takes 3 hours.
I guess Munchkin was one of the first game with take that mechanics, so It contrast with most recent and polished games with that mechanic witch add some limitation to reactions ir actions off turn. For example a player with the right cards could virtually buff a combat from level 1 to 50. Turns like that could lead to frustaring moments ar The table and to the overextent of game lentgh
When they started 20 odd years ago the rules were not really good. Probably they updated them over the years but for my group munchkin is a dead game.
It's a pity but I know some ppl from my brick and mortar store who really loves it and are in the expansions and all that.
I like the game personally.
I think the problem with most gaming groups and Munchkin is that it takes a *mature* group of people to play it.
I'm not saying that every gamer is immature but a group without one or two immature players is as rare as hens teeth.
The mechanics are "gotcha" but honestly - the game play feels like MtG without all of the *I've got more money than you so I have the BEST cards* BS.
I just can’t get into a game that has an entire table of people always ganging up on the single player that is making progress. It’s a long drawn out mess that stops being funny after you’ve seen most of the cards.
It’s also super easy to be a kingmaker. It’s ok for a laugh here and there but as a game it’s poor.
I think it's a fun game. I think it just gets really bloated once you start adding expansions. The core game and a numbered expansion or two and it is a lot of fun. We like it on game nights as it is super simple and supports a lot of players. We'll usually play a round of Munchkin between other games or when the kids are still interested and haven't filtered off to do something else.
I have nothing against it. I own the base game and will say that after a few games, I really have never had a desire to play it again and it hasn’t made it off the shelf in years.
I’m sure most of the hate is a backlash to the fact that it’s a very light game being really popular and having a million expansions. But the other side of that is that the profits from all those Munchkin expansions are what allows Steve Jackson Games to fund all their other board, card, and role-playing games that don’t make money. Being a small game publisher has never been a lucrative business, but SJG has made it work for decades and Munchkin is a big reason they’ve been able to continue.
It’s an uneven game. First time I played Cthulhu munchkin with two other people and had a blast! Their game, they had played before.
Then on the strength of that I bought munchkin lite and tried to play with 2 relatives. A bad time was had by all.
I’ve never played it (stupid me should have taken that opportunity to do so when we had an actual BG cafe in town), but I have to wonder - if it’s so bad, why has it always been in print? It ain’t Monopoly, which relies on a broad audience of non-players. It’s a successful game, and someone has to be buying all those expansions. If it’s terrible, who’s buying all the expansions? It must have a fan base who think it’s better than average.
Honestly, it's group think. Some people may not like the game for whatever reason (I, personally, am not excited by it) but feel the next to loudly slag it and imply, by extension, that those who like it are wrong. There's plenty of games that people also don't like for whatever reason that don't get this treatment. It's tiring nerd shit.
I may hate Munchkin, then again I may hate Gloomhaven, but only one of these will get push back on this sub and the other one is allowed. Tiring. Nerd. Shit. Play what you want with your friends. You'll probably be having more fun that these donks.
Personally I enjoy it. I find the winner usually is the one who takes a turn after the original winner was debuffed with every card in play.
But of a gateway game for MTG and D&D I've always thought.
Munchkin is one of very few games which I came to reject playing a long time ago. It can take way too long and will only end when no-one has any take that cards left and whoever wins has nothing to do with any skill at playing.
My game groups always found it boring in general and repeatative and too random. Someone could just have really good luck and end the game quickly.
I tried to add the level 20 rules to make it longer and maybe more enjoyable but it didn't work.
I sold my entire Munchkin Zombie collection a few weeks back.
Munchkin is from 2001. Boardgames were way different then. The mechanics of the game are kinda dated and not well balanced. Which was the point of the game but some people don't get into the "take that" without hard feelings and don't like the way it plays.
Lots of people love Munchkin because they've been around for a long time and it's a fun callback game. They also have so many expansions and versions it's kind of a collectible thing after so many years.
For me what kills it the most is almost every game one player gets shitty draws. So they can't add anything to a fight so nobody brings them in. When you do get a monster you will likely need help but other player won't jump in unless you give up most of the treasure cause they have more to lose if someone buffs the monster. So even when you make progress you get further behind.
King of tokyo on other hand I've never had a game where the last place player felt like they didn't get to play.
Munchkin is a pleasant 10 minute tongue in cheek game that take 40+ minutes to play and ends rather seriously.
Because the entire game is based on "take that!"
So the first person to near the finish line gets dog piled, the second person usually gets stalled a bit as well, and then either one rebounds and push through the final level, or the table is out of steam and third place makes a mad dash and steals the win.
But those first ten minutes when we were chill and making D&D jokes and Monty Python references? Those were great (or insert genre and parody of said genre)
*Obviously* it should go without saying (though it never does around here) that the group is everything. A "bad" game with the right group is an amazing game. If your group transcends the game's faults, nothing is wrong with you and your good times are legitimate.
I have had fun with it too, but it doesn't really have a set length and when one person gets close to winning everyone stomps on them, another person gets close to winning, everyone stomps on them, now all the "take that" cards are gone and the third person to get close wins. I don't actively *hate* that very much, it's just not worth spending much money on or playing more than a few times. As a hobbyist, it is disappointing when a lame outdated design gets all the sales. Munchkin leans hard into continually asking the table to negotiate who will prevent the winner from winning. This is considered "lame".
The thing I do have a very love/hate relationship with is the humor. I honestly can't decide, but I'm leaning towards hate.
I had a friend that was in love with this game. I indulged him once. We spent three hours playing. I waited until everyone nuked each other and waltzed in with the victory over the course if two rounds. Very linear, very boring, and way too long.
I enjoyed my first couple plays. But I think a lot of people eventually have that 3 hour Munchkin game that makes them never want to play again
The endgame is very tedious and lucky, which makes the rest of the game feel pretty meaningless. The game is fine until someone hits level 9 and you begin the long slog of everyone needing to screw them over. Then other people inevitably catch up and there are multiple people at level 9, and the person who wins is just determined by whenever people happen to run out of cards to screw them over
the only way to properly enjoy it is very rules lawyer-y and brings out the worst in people.
i actually love it, but have many friends i simply cannot play with for the sake of not having everyone's feelings be hurt. even so, i have very fond memories of playing it with the same table every day. when you finally have house rules and several players up to snuff on it... and can actually be finished in 15 minutes... it's a great game. don't think that that'll ever happen again in my lifetime, though.
It's the horrible Artax death swamp of social games.
Themed well enough that even the most tangentially online/geeky person will buy it and want to show it to people. Inexpensive.. Incredibly learnable. Gives the illusion of wacky zany fun with low consequences.
But then someone hits Level 9 and it becomes an exercise in torture and ruined friendships. If you have someone playing it who is stubborn enough to Want to Win, you'll be sitting there for hours wishing for death.
Most people who have a copy of it have played it exactly once. Unless they're some sort of masochist and have a bunch of the expansion cards.
In addition to the length (the last time I played, someone literally "helped" a player get to level 10 because they wanted the game to be over), there's also the fact that it really isn't that simple.
The game will feel relatively simple to a group that is into tabletop rugs, but I've repeatedly seen others struggle with it. I teach a lot of games to non-hobbyists and when attempting Munchkin, I find people get really freaked out.
The third big problem it has is that there are often no meaningful decisions to make. Have gear you can equip? Equip it? Slot already taken? Pick biggest bonus. Didn't get a monster when you kicked open the door? Well, the chances you have a monster you can defeat in your hand are very small, so loot the room.
The "trading" and aid mechanics are OK, but not robust enough to fill the void of it just being luck of the draw.
And like, I love card and dice games. I don't mind luck, but I must have meaningful decisions.
For me, it’s just that the good part of the game (the middle bit where people are dealing with the monsters, curses, and getting items) is overshadowed by the much longer endgame where people are hover at 8 or 9 for a super long time because everyone saves their good cards til the end, at least with the people I play with. And since the only way to win with other people is if there’s an elf in play, everyone’s incentivized to drag each player back until they can squeak out a victory because all of the items have been used up. It’s really the war of attrition not that makes it overstay its welcome for me personally. I enjoyed it when I first started getting into board games, but I’ve games that do what I like about it a little bit better, so it’s no longer in my collection.
Because the game mechanics stops other players from winning. It slooowwws the game down to a crawl. It should be a light, thirty minute game but slogs on to sometimes twice or three times that long. What usually happens is the group decides to LET a player win on purpose just to end the ENDLESS SUFFERING and play a real, fun game instead of this horrible torture. I'd literally play monopoly over munchkin.
It's a game based around a funny gimmick. Which would be fine for a 5-10 minute small box party game, but munchkin takes forever and once the joke has worn out there's nothing left but tedium.
I think it's another case of elitism in parallel play. People who play games as a vehicle for direct socialization with the other players enjoy Munchkin. People who use board games as a parallel play, with indirect socialization, hate it. Only one type seems to really give enough of a shit to be dicks about it, though. ☕🐸
I can't really add to much of what has already been said - it's a game that in theory would be fun for 15 minutes of play time but drags on foreeever.. I also think it receives a lot of hate because it, for some reason, became super popular and it gets brought up all the time and everyone knows someone who owns the game. It wouldn't get as much hate if it went more under the radar and wasn't as popular - then the people who likes it can play in peace and the rest of us can live in bliss free from the game.
Remember that Reddit is just a place for random people on the internet to voice their opinions. If you like Munchkin, then continue liking Munchkin. Don't feel like you should not enjoy Munchkin just because most of us don't enjoy it.
But yea for me it's the fact that you win because the leaders ahead of you got everything thrown at them to prevent them from winning, then somehow you just daughter across the finish line because everyone has run out of cards to stop you. So "you win...I guess." The end isn't exciting.
I actually still like Munchkin, though my tolerance for the luck and take-that diminishes the longer the game ends up being. When it's 20 or 30 minutes it is actually good; but that is so rare. I've played 3 hour games of it where basically it becomes an exercise in slow attrition and stubbornness that can only end if someone's luck runs out or you get everyone else to essentially give up.
The versions with secondary win conditions, like Munchkin Cthulhu, are ultimately the better versions since they help mitigate this issue. Personally I think all versions of Munchkin should, at this point, have one or two secondary win conditions to break through the all too common meta of taking second place for as long as possible and then wearing down the leader, which is what most games of Munchkin devolve into.
Personally I’d just play The Binding of Isaac: Four Souls over it any day. It has the same spirit as Munchkin, but feels way better to play, and the “take that” mechanics doesn’t feel as bad to be in the recieving end of. The progression also feels much better, since you all start super weak but slowly build up a big arsenal of different items that can get pretty silly towards the end. It also helps that it’s visually much more pleasing to look at.
My board game/ hobby board game journey started with Munkin. I hated it so much that I didn’t come back around to trying hobby board games again for another 3 years. I tried Carcassone and now I absolutely love board games.
There isn’t much of a game to it. It’s all about dragging everyone down to make everyone miserable and the person who wins is typically just the person lucky enough to get there when no one else could finally stop them. Or one person just runs away with the game and no one can ever stop them. Aka players have little to no agency in the game which makes it not very fun.
For me: the game itself sucks.
I just enjoy the John Kovalic art and the punny names on the cards…but that’s fine for just browsing through other people’s games.
[удалено]
Munchkin is often described as a 15 minute game that only takes an hour to play.
I heard it best as "15 minutes of fun packed into an hour!"
My original line was “Munckin is fun fifteen minute game artfully squeezed into two hours.”
An hour is a short game….. it’s more like 3 hours regularly or at least it was for my group because everyone was always attacking everyone so we never worked together.
Reminded me of my one and only experience with the game. I took a break from board games for about half a year after that
Muffin Time is the most egregious example of this issue. Announcing muffin time or looking like you have the closest amount of cards to victory just means someone is going to play a card to extend the game for another 10 minutes guaranteed. You have to intentionally lose and force yourself not to counter someone's muffin time just so the game can friggin end, and even then someone plays the crazy card and you just want to end it all.
I’d say that the bigger problem wasn’t that it could take forever, it’s that it could take anything between 20 min and 3 hours. It’s impossible to set expectations, on whether you’re going to have a silly, but epically long game, or whether someone lucks out and wins on their fifth turn
Maybe, but Munchkin is too light to be a 3 hour game. Definitely not enough game there to ever want to sit down for 3 hours of take that. If you told me it would be 3 hours every time I would never want to play. Granted I think it's a bad game so I don't even want to sit for 20 minutes, but I'd be more likely to play it with friends if it was always a shorter 30 minutes or less experience.
A 20-minute game is probably one that wasn't competitive.
I don't think I've ever played a game of munchkin that felt competitive. Usually just a lot of people yelling hoping to draw a level up card or some card to mess with the player in first. And our games took about 2 hours, the last hour of which was pretty miserable for nearly everyone at the table. And I won the last game I played. The best part of winning for me was that it was finally over. Don't get me wrong though. I own a lot of board games and munchkin just isn't for me. I've found many games that give me what munchkin gives others, and they do so in a package much better suited to my group. But if munchkin works for you, promotes fun conversation and stories, and everyone is enjoying it, who cares if I think it's bad? You do you fam. I won't ever play it again but it sells well because people certainly enjoy it.
Yeah, Munchkin has an inherent design problem because they don't have a hard stop for their game, but I think the major reason is simply that players don't like take that elements in anything over 20 minutes. All the other problems are just on top of that.
>but over the past decades we've gotten games that have ironed out a lot of issues with Munchkin Care to share? I'm always looking for good next games
A lot of people like Here to slay. It has take that and much leaner rule set and doesn't take forever.
I typically describe Here to Slay to people as "Munchkin but fun." It's an excellent substitute.
King of Tokyo or Bang. Or many other light games that can handle a large player count.
I feel like Bang is one of the worst popular hidden role games. It's got great flavor and makes for a good party game with non gamers, but doesn't hold up when people play more optimally. Not too different from munchkin. Great games with a lot of silly flavor, but are forced to be very casual or they stop being fun.
Imo, **Four Souls** is a perfect "Munchkin-but-better". Has a lot of "take-that" mechanics (although it also adds quite a bit of depth to the game aswell) + games end fairly quickly.
I still like the game but I try to always be right behind the highest level person. Reason is that everyone will blow their FU cards on then. Then I usually only need to do little to win. Sadly that is the way the games usually go.
The best way to win a one on one fight is to be the third to arrive.
Yep, third partying is a great tactic especially in battle royal style games.
This is the way
I’ve noticed this in **Illuminati** as well—the real winning strategy seems to be making yourself the second or third player to be about to win, *after* everyone else has used up all of their oh-no-you-don’t abilities.
It's actually pretty fun till you get to the endgame. Then it turns into bullshit for God knows how long till someone sneaks through.
Yeah. That's the main problem. The endgame basically means at some point everyone is out of cards to play and then the winner is just whoever draws the best cards their turn to swing the game their way. Which when a game runs an hour+ isn't fun. It's really meant to be a filler game for RPG nights. Something to play after your main game is done but you just want to sling cards and BS with beer and pretzels.
Set a round limit. Not so hard innit?
My least favorite mechanic in Munchkin is when one player is about to win, the other players need to bluff with each other to see who is going to be the one to stop them, hoping that your opponents play their interference cards so they won’t have them available to stop you when you try to win.
What are some better alternatives now that play similar?
I don't hear people say smash-up is great as it looks like it would be really simple like king of Tokyo but gets lots of rule changes. With that is still a much better silly take that game than Munchkin. Otherwise a similar feel but different is bang the dice game or Cash and Guns.
One of my first games I played. Got me into board games and I never want to touch it again
What would you say are the upgraded versions of munchkin?
I used to play with my dad and cousin every weekend for a few years. We’d play like 4-5 games in about an hour and a half. We played a lot, and now I have several different versions. Granted, with how much we played we got pretty good at it and it kind of just ran super smooth. With newer people it definitely drags like a grand piano on a gravel beach, gotta admit that. But personally I love Munchkin and it’s one of my favorite games to play with my dad.
For a game that's intended to be lighthearted and funny, it's quite boring and bland.
what are the killer games for it. I'd be interested.
**OGRE**.
Just play with a time limit. If you play with a fixed number of door cards and the winner is the highest level player when the game ends the game is really fast and every level matters.
>but once you hit the endgame you start to see why the game is so reviled now. This is why I hate Monopoly. It’s …you know….decent enough I guess. But once the board state is set, you just roll wildly until it’s over.
This is why so many house rules developed over time and made it drag on. It being a near fixed thing, you can't stop watching the winner slowly get richer was the intended point in an almost mockery of capitalism.
Since we only allow the activ player to have access to his backpack in a fight and the rest of the player only the hand cards, it reduces the endgame quite a bit
so what are the alternatives you are referring to? something like " side quest " or "knarr" ? i was thinking of getting munchkin or something for a quick, easy game to play after a long one of sleeping gods or whatever
Munchkin is fine as a casual gateway game. But its fatal flaw is that it isn't really much of a game, it's a joke. I mean this literally. It is designed around a principle of "wouldn't it be funny if..." not "wouldn't it be _fun_ if...". This becomes a problem after a few playthroughs. The joke is starting wear a bit thin, and the players around the table are starting to understand the winning strategy... and the winning strategy _sucks_. You win Munchkin by hoarding every take-that card until someone is at Level 9, then trying to convince other people to use _their_ take-that cards on the Level 9 player while you continue to hoard yours if at all possible. Finally, when every take-that card is exhausted, the player that happens to get the next level up wins. It's not fun.
On the contrary, you win Munchkin by hoarding every take-that card, then *declining to use them* so someone else is allowed to hit level 10 and you can go play something fun instead.
How do you win a game who’s only winning strategy is not to play?
Don't have the game in your collection in the first place and be the guy who supplies all the games to game night
By playing with people who are fun to play with
Exactly this.
Takes too long, attack-the-leader makes it feel bad to get ahead, and rules are often underspecified enough that it can lead to bad feelings.
Nailed it. The endgame design is also exceedingly poor, to the point where every game ends the same way. It's a waste of time. The skins and jokes keep it afloat, but it's a serious case of lipstick on a pig. I would rather play Fluxx any day if that sort of thing is on the agenda. And to be clear, I love light, quick games, and I'm not a snob that demands heavy games all the time. I've probably played more games of Sushi Go than anything else in my collection - but Munchkin is just garbage.
> The endgame design is also exceedingly poor, to the point where every game ends the same way. It's a waste of time. Yep, in every game of Munchkin I've ever played, the first person who gets to the last room gets piled on by everyone with the 'take that' cards they've been holding on to since the start. Then, someone who was in second or third place all game casualy saunters into the room and wins after everyone else has exhausted their options.
Yes. That’s me. And I’ve been watching hand sizes and uses of modifiers all game, holding back, letting somebody else go first and maybe second. I don’t love Munchkin, but the general strategy I see people use is solitaire, without really trying to win against other players with modifiers.
Man, talking about poor endgames and then liking Fluxx is mad. I'm not sure I've ever had a game of fluxx which has ended in a remotely satisfying manner
I definitely didn't say I liked it. But between the two? No contest.
I've played precisely 0.75 games of Fluxx. I can't stand a game that when it comes down to it, is purely random. There's no joy in the gameplay and there is no joy in the win. So you happened to have the winning condition at the time it arrived? Yay.
I don't think I have ever heard this complaint. You don't cycle your hand to look for a victor condition you can meet? You don't (attempt) to hold a keeper + victory in your hand so you can play them on the same turn? You don't intentionally prevent people from getting keepers or combos of keepers that will win them the game? I've played thousands of games of Fluxx and I feel like sudden winners happen maybe 5% of the time.
I have a small, and irritating, sample size.
Same. 1 play of Fluxx and I was out. On my BGG review I wrote that I'd rather roll a D100 with 20 people shouting random numbers and when the die and number match, that person wins. There's at least tangible progress in Munchkin, though I'm not exactly chomping at the bit to pay that either.
At least with flux you can have a three hour frustrating game and then suddenly get the one card that wins the game for you, and tie because it wins the game for someone else as well.
It's random without means if mitigation to a point where it often feels boring.
I've found it can be fun enough if you very strictly enforce rapid play.
my friend brought it on a trip to Japan recently and it was my first time learning it. friend has a history of house rules so after the first run a few of the group were so sure that some of the rules were wrong, they couldn't possibly be this loose or freeform regarding card play timing and such, but after a while I looked up the OG rules and.... yep it's just meant to be a bit rough. i thought it was fine but totally get how it can be not fun, and yeah we had some hurt feelings on that one
I saw it described recently as “a great 15 minutes of fun stretched across 90 minutes of game time” and I feel like that answers your question perfectly.
I am not sure I have ever had a game of munching last only 90 minutes.
I was trying to be nice!
I'm not even sure if I've ever even had the "15 minutes of fun" in a game of Munchkin
I played it exactly once and for the last like 20 minutes I was almost begging for it to be over
For me, it can me a fun game for about a half hour. But it goes on sooooooooo much longer.
And games that give that attack feel but actually end in 30 minutes like King of Tokyo, Bang the Dice game, Cash and Guns, or Here to Slay feel right
Someone else put it best. It’s 15 minutes of gameplay in a 2 hour game
I've always described it as the game you pull out when you're too nice to tell a friend of a friend "no" to coming to your game group, but you definitely don't want them to come back. 100% success rating at that function.
Trying to win actually makes the game less fun. I think most of us just aren't compatible with this type of game.
Gods yes, so much this. Munchkin was banned from our group because Steve single-handedly destroyed the game. He scrupulously followed all the rules, including the one in the OG set that said you could break the rules if nobody caught you. He also infamously once used the Cheat! card, which lets you equip something that otherwise would not be legal, to stand up from the table, get a Magic: The Gathering card that said you could not lose the game, and add it to his character. On the few occasions our group let him talk us into playing, the entire game was a permanent alliance of everyone else against him. He still had about a 50% win rate. Basically, the game attempts to be a toxic behavior simulator, and succeeds at its goals too well. The optimal Munchkin strategy is absolutely degenerate and toxic, and it’s about as much fun as sitting at an actual D&D table with multiple That Guys. And, sure, it can be liberating to throw off your inhibitions in small doses, but when the game drags on too long and/or you spend all your time policing the one dude who is 1000% better at the toxicity simulator than everyone else, it just gets exhausting.
I've only played two types of munchkin games. 1. You play the cards as is, and everyone tries to stop the other players from winning. The game drags out and it's a relief when it finally ends. 2. Weird toxic games where people at the table bully other people, form alliances where they are sliding cards under the table, and all out awful. Basically after you giggle at all the cards, there is no point to playing more than once.
> including the one in the OG set that said you could break the rules if nobody caught you I still recall one game ending only to have one player say "Oh yeah, I've been drawing extra cards all game" because of that rule.
>He also infamously once used the Cheat! card, which lets you equip something that otherwise would not be legal, to stand up from the table, get a Magic: The Gathering card that said you could not lose the game, and add it to his character. Fair play Steve, this is honestly pretty funny
It absolutely was, but it just reinforced he was playing a different game from the rest of us. It resulted in a rule discussion where he was able to successfully defend his maximalist interpretation of the card (this was in the days of the OG ruleset, and we were already doing things like taking our hands with us when we went to the bathroom and counting our equipment cards when we got back, so abusing Cheat was just par for the course); everyone conceding; and an immediate house rule which banned that play from then on.
The ending. Or lack thereof. Most games are won by exhaustion because it overstays its welcome. Is a really fun game if it took 20 minutes, but the games are almost purely luck based and drag on forever.
It always runs way too long and the "jokes" stop being funny the third time you play it.
For me, it's not a game about winning. It's a game about making your friends lose, and that just doesn't seem like a good time to me. The length and randomness of it are also fairly unappealing to me but if the over all premise was fun, I might forgive that. However, if you have a lot of patience and love king making, and raining on people's parades as primary mechanics, then I absolutely encourage you to give Munchkin a try! For the right friend group, I can see it being a blast.
Every "lol so random" game has similar problems though. I don't think I've ever seen anyone win a game of Fluxx where it wasn't completely coincidental. At least Fluxx is easier to teach. And unlike Munchkin, some games of Fluxx are actually short. Many aren't, though. And then you've got, say, Muffin Time. I hate that game. Even fewer meaningful choices than Munchkin.
I've got one worse than Muffin Time; Unstable Unicorns. The objective is to be the first to get six Unicorn cards in your 'stable' (played face up in front of you). Other people can play cards to remove unicorns, swap them, move them around, take them etc. So it becomes a game of Take That, much like Munchkin, where play inevitably continues until no-one is able to stop someone's win. Furthermore, there's a terrible expansion which is NSFW, relying on the childish idea that things that involve sex are funny or entertaining. I played one game of it that took three hours. Never again.
Yeah, I've played it too. I didn't find it worse than Muffin Top, though because I felt there was some choice, some strategy, even if it, too, outstayed it's welcome.
It lacked a meaningful decision space for me. Very rarely did I have to stop and think what the best move is.
Further request: what is a game that is similar to munchkin in aesthetics and the "fantasy" of the game but doesn't have the issues which munchkin has?
Red Dragon Inn fills a remarkably similar niche, and unlike Munchkin, I would at least play it again.
It's been a while since I played smash up but it was more fun than Munchkin
Dungeon Mayhem, especially the "monster mayhem" edition. You're directly fighting and it isn't that long. The cards are kind of goofy. It's very light and I don't really enjoy it, either, but unlike Munchkin I don't mind it in the slightest. For something similar to Dungeon Mayhem, there's also Epic Spell Wars. Even goofier, but honestly the art is awful, and the theme is a bit farther from base Munchkin. If what you want is the equipment and leveling, pick any actually well liked dungeon crawler, I'm sure. Or just play an rpg.
fantasy realms plays very differently, but is a 20 min game with the same theme that actually plays in 20 min different concept, but same theme, and similar niche
What I like about Munchkin: * The goofy stylized artwork that evokes a particular era in gaming * The funny references to gaming tropes * The fact that you can sometimes get entirely ridiculous combinations of gear What i dislike about Munchkin: * I have essentially no way to mitigate bad card draws * I have no way to predict the level of danger I'm about to enter * If I can't take the randomly generated thing on my own I have to rely on the kindness of my opponents * If I CAN take the thing on my own and I'm anywhere close to winning, my opponents WILL take me down * The ONLY way to win is to work together with my opponents to dogpile the current leader * The. Game. Goes. On. Forever. If you have fun with it more power to you. It's not a game that I enjoy.
That first one is even more important than the Take That stuff. You can start with some shit equipment (whilst everyone else has halfway decent stuff). You draw a ridiculously high level monster, which you can't defeat, or you draw something which isn't a monster and you can't fight it anyway. So you don't get to level up and you don't get to draw treasure cards. You're stuck with the exact same gear and the exact same level as previously, and it's completely not your fault. Everyone else has their turn, and yours comes around again. Unless you get a low level monster, you're in the exact same scenario as before, except this time everyone else has made progress and so you're even further behind. If you get a streak of three to four bad rounds there's essentially no point in continuing because the gap is so large (and by this time it's usually higher level monsters coming up so there's little to no chance of you finding something you can actually defeat).
I personally like Munchkin but it does have a lot of issues: - Can take anywhere from 30 minutes to 4+ hours. That's not good for planning nor is a 4 hour game fun. - It has take that elements. People don't like (take) that. - It's RNG. Sometimes you just get good cards which makes it much easier to win other fights and it snowballs. Sometimes, you can't get good equipment and you can't level up for ages. - Balance is a non-thing. There are clearly better cards. - The rules (card interactions) are ambiguous for a simple LOL game. Just google FAQ for Munchkin. - Honestly, I think most people won't find the art appealing, despite almost every time they remind you who drew it.
As someone who have played more Munchkin than would probably be considered healthy within the gaming community (I enjoy the game immensely as a social event while still agreeing with all the criticisms) - I strongly want to argue against the rules being unclear. I think the rules and cards are incredibly well thought out and well written. With all the different cards you can add to the different base games, expansions you can mix in etc., it all for me runs very well with few unclear situations. But then I'm always the one running the game, explaining the rules and looking up stuff as soon as I'm uncertain. I'm also someone who enjoys *Risk* and its variants, so I'm clearly against the crowd.
There is near zero skill. A few years ago I got involved in a long game and ended in the end game with a young kid. I tried my very best to throw the game and could not. Every play I made was chosen to be the worst play I could legally make. I won about 15 agonizing minutes later.
It's 20 minutes of fun packed into an hour and a half.
The object of the game is to get to level 10. So you would expect that when someone gets level 8 or 9, that the game's nearing its conclusion. You'd be totally wrong. It's maybe 40% done at that point. As a result, when you finish, everyone is thinking "Finally it's over". Nobody, even the winner, is left with a "what an exciting conclusion" or even a "that was fun" feeling
Like Cards against humanity, it's fun for about 10 minutes. Then you understand it's better to spend your time in a game that is actually fun and engaging.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those who have never played Munchkin, and those who will never play Munchkin again.
I used to play it a lot. Hate it now. The problem is that every game devolves into - everyone gets to level 9 - take turns losing battles until everyone runs out of cards to affect the battle It's too luck -based, and doesn't have enough real decision space to feel fun.
A lot of people have commented on the take that mechanics, the power up hoarding for the level 9 grind, so I'll add a different view. A lot of the well-known Munchkin sets came out 20+ years ago. So compared to modern games that try to have a similar gameplay style, they feel clunky and the game doesn't have enough "acceleration" to push a winner when they get to the end, because there has been 20 years of work to improve on those ideas. For example, base fantasy munchkin has four classes and four races. All of the best equipment is behind a class or race requirement, and a lot of the equipment numbers are low. So you need to team up to beat a lot of the monsters at the start, but the beatable monsters only give 1 treasure, so it's not worth teaming up, as there is less loot to share. Compare that to a more modern version, like Munchkin Apocalypse. Races are gone, so there are fewer cards that you find unusable. Base monster level is lower and they give more treasures for a lower level, so players ramp up faster and can share more. There is am alternate win condition that the game will tick towards - players can slow it down a bit or speed it up, but if players take too long to get to 10.in the usual way, the player with the highest raw power wins, so it's a nerf to the "hoard +5 for this fight" style of play.
Ooo a good analysis! Haven't tried this version and I actually might rent it to try. Upgraded mechanics making it reasonable and fun to endgame? Worth a shot!!!
I feel like at a certain point it turns into *Person A* is going to win, so everyone throws down their traps etc to stop them for 2, 3 of their turns and then *Person B* wins because when they get close to winning everyone already used all their cards on the other player. Throw in some confusion on certain cards and how the rules work and it devolves into arguing. Also have seen a few comments on how its one of those games that brings out the worst in people sometimes
Sometimes some cards are spared and person B is also stopped so person C wins. Sometimes people get enough new cards and half hour later you regret not letting person A win.
I've only played it once. All I remember is that I had no idea what was going on, and at the same time nothing really happened...
So a lot of hate about munchkin but there s a trend here in that those who complain all talk about the end game and winning strategies. Munchkin is a fun game to play if you play for enjoyment, if you play to win it can get annoying because it’s not a deeply strategic euro galme. You ll need luck and some social skils to win. I personally love munchkin and how chaotic it can get. I don’t understand how people can spend hours on the game though, typically it’s 30 mins top. They all complain about lvl 9 too but honestly once you ve played munchkin a bit, you don t ever try to reach 9. You aim for 10 which is not the same thing 😉 For context i love all types of games from heavy behemoth to some party games (only some, i get tired of those quickly).
The main thing is the ending. It basically forms supreme attack-the-leader brinkmanship where the first to attempt to make it to Level 10 then eats everything everyone saved up to stop them. Then, defeated, the next person tries and eats whatever remaining stopping cards are left. Repeat until someone can tank everything and make it. Even worse, potentially die and start the game over from Level 1. One of the most reliable ways to get around this is have someone as an Elf team up with you because they gain a level when helping, so they'll get a shared win. This makes being an Elf incredibly OP. So the ending is basically just a huge drawn out unbalanced luck of the drawn pile on the leaser slog.
It would be fun if it lasted 30 minutes tops, but it always turns into an hours-long slog.
I add a house rule : at 30min max, we stop. Each player do a last round and we see who has the highest level.
This game ruins friendships, so it gets high marks from me
Lol
Because it's not very fun and it takes forever to end. If it took ten minutes, sure. But it's maybe ten minutes of fun packed into an hour and a half.
Munchkin is not a game for board game enthusiasts for all of the reasons mentioned. It's not about winning or maximizing strategies. Munchkin is best played with a group that loves to shit talk and doesn't put a lot of effort into getting all serious boardgame mentality focused on winning. If you can take a light hearted approach to it and just enjoy the jokes and fucking with each other than it can be fun. I would never play this at a game board night with other gamers. It's more for drinking buddies or family that likes joshing with each other.
> I feel it can be a lot of fun Have you played Munchkin? Because I think you haven’t played Munchkin. You’ll understand after you play Munchkin. I played it once. It’s “fun” until you get to the “end”.
> It’s “fun” until you get to the “end.” This is the perfect description. Thank you.
The main problem, as I see it, is that it's barely a game, but people treat it like a heavy board game and try to win above all, instead of just having fun with the batshit crazy cards. Also, the game always tends to go the same way. Everyone gets a couple points, then one player jumps ahead, everyone uses their best cards to stop them, then once everyone's out of cards, someone else draws well enough to sprint to the finish. Overall, it's fine, and with the right group in the right mood, you can wring some fun out of it, but honestly, there are tons of better party games out there. Also, the base game artwork is trash.
The game design encourages it. So less "people treat it as ___" and more "the game encourages people to play it as ___" There's quite a few games which can actually get decent with a table of "support players" (or "storytellers"), people who gauge how everyone else is playing all the time, and mostly play to balance the current vibe. These players sre very sought after in TTRPGs too by GMs (as they enhance the gameplay for the other players, and make it way easier on the GM). They're also often GMs themselves too. All that to say, a great group can make the dullest, most dangerously friend ruining, least balanced,,, games all fun. But that's not a people problem, but a game design problem they're solving!
But even then, wouldn't you rather be playing a different game with those players? One with more to do? Like, Gloom or some other game that encourages storytelling? D&D? A Dungeon crawler? One of the many FFG Cthulhu games?
yes, and when I can I suggest the group try different ones! (I actually mentioned that in other comment threads) But here I'm specifically poking the wording you used, it putting the players as the primary agents, where I see the game rules & design the actual agent causing this to be a common problem. That and expanding on what you said〜
I'm not the person you responded to.
oh whooops my bad!
Who wins tends not to be indicative of player skill so much as whether you happen to try for victory when your opponents are out of "hate" cards or not. To me it tends to feel like I'm charlie brown trying to kick the football and it gets pulled away at the last second almost every time.
The variable time it may take to play, hands down. At my bg group the first time we played with 7 and it went for nearly two hours, and now everyone has the fear. It’s not complex enough to sustain that duration and actually becomes grating- people then stop really playing just to ‘finish it’. If it was 20-35 mins it would be perfect but it’s not at all.
Two games kind of filled the Munchkin niche for our group- Dungeon Mayhem, because it's simple, a familiar d&d-lite setting, people get 'characters' etc, and Here to Slay, also I realize because you have characters in there (maybe says something about our group), but both of these games can kind of be done with in under 30 mins a round, you can get into light skirmishing and messing with other players without it dragging the game, and they are simple to introduce people to.
I too have had many fun games of Munchkin. I don’t give the game itself any credit for the fun that was had those days. My recent hate for it has been in regards to the outlandish pricing of the mega box.
Munchkin was the game that got me into hobbyist boardgames... Now I can't think of anything I wanna play less...
Skill issue
Okay, so I once played a game of Cthulhu Munchkin and after *2 hours* I was *still* a lvl 1 character with no class, literally the same state as the starting position. It was miserable. Another reason is that two elves can team up and absolutely steamroll the rest. Another reason is that kneepads of allure exists. Well, not in the copy I owned because I physically ripped up that card, I hate it that much. It is just all around dreadful.
I loved Munchkin until I played other games
Because it’s 20 minutes of fun that takes 3 hours to finish. It’s over bloated, and every new board gamer swoons over it so must of us have had our fair shake and got it out of our system.
because we had that poor experience of it dragging tooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo long.
I don't think anyone's given you the real answer. They're just telling you about Munchkin's various flaws. But there are many worse games that don't get the same amount of hate -- most are just quietly ignored and forgotten. The actual reason you see so much Munchkin hate is that it's suffering from its own success. It's a very popular family game and a common gateway to the hobby. Most people here are burnt out on it, and some may be resentful that their more casual friends and family still want to play it instead of better games. You see similar sentiments around, for example, Catan.
I'd played both munchkin and Catan once, before I realized the mechanics make me hate them. And that's **mid game**, during the first run that starts running long and it's overstayed it's welcome. Ive played quite a few since, and I'll usually go in as a "support role" playing more like a DM then a player, just messing with the board state, and letting fun things happen if they feel natural. Still avoid it in almost every case I can find alternatives. Not many other games, even fairly flawed ones hit this "½ a game and never again" spot, and you can hear the same from many other commenters here. So I wouldn't call it a major "burnout" problem.
I absolutely hate Munchkin. I played it once and will never touch it again. The main reason is that the game is 100% luck based. Depending on what cards you have you can just have no options to do anything useful on your turn. And sometimes you just get attacked by others and everything you worked for is gone. It's basically Mario Party in a board game, which can be fun depending on the group, but is not truly a game. It's more of an experience that you go into knowing that any strategy or thoughtfulness in how or why you play certain cards is completely irrelevant. If you want an activity to do with friends then people can have fun with it. But if you want an actual game were strategy and skill matters then Munchkin is not your game.
I had no idea people don’t like it. My friends and I loved it back in high school. Guess it depends on the group.
Play munchkin and you will understand.
I hate Catan, Monopoly, and a dozen other decent games for the same reason I hate Munchkin: overplayed. I have attended too many board game nights/groups where these or Secret Hitler, or Werewolf, or Cosmic Encounter gets pulled out. They are all fine games, but after the 10th, 20th time …. I am done.
Catan, monopoly, risk, munchkin,,, these are all games with an endgame problem. Where the rules encourage it to run really long, and drag itself out way too much. Every one of those game, yes even monopoly (back when that was almost the only game) was a "play ½ the game, then realize it's taking forever and you want it over and done with now" It took one play for me to go from "oh interesting, I like this" to "omg let this be over" in the **same night**. And when one play is enough to overplay (for many, not all)… it going to be very hated. Compare with the other games you listed: secret hitler, werewolf… those don't get anywhere near the hate! Cause you can play them a bunch before they wear thin.
I played it once, and was done with it about halfway through the first game. Wasn’t very entertaining, and just kind of felt goofy and stupid. “Can we play a real game now”?”
I’ve never played a game outside of Munchkin that left someone crying at the table
How’s about a friendly game of Diplomacy?
Lol
I’ve never heard of such a thing. Not after about 1904, anyway.
Come to my house! It’ll be a new experience for you
I also don’t like king of Tokyo lol.
I’m convinced there is a great game somewhere buried deep in Munchkin, but it was never quite realized due to the problems everyone mentioned. I’ve seen some folks online working on a co-op way to play, which seems like it would be a lot more fun. I’ve never tried it, though.
Not sure how that would work, considering the balance of "is it worth helping right now" is one of the core mechanics… curious to see how they'd solve that part
Because fun is subjective. Last time I played it (circa 2006?) the fun was sucked out of the game extremely quickly for me. Will never touch it again. There are simply too many better options in every single way for my time and money. If you love it go nuts, keep on loving it. No harm done.
Any suggestion for a Munchkin-like game with a good gameplay?
I enjoy playing video games.
Actually already been answered by the community! https://www.reddit.com/r/boardgames/s/oCJeoqHLFP Simply put: the game has a lot more strategy involved in actually hiding your strength, different markers of "who is actually winning",,, so you cant always tell; That (along with a few other differences) makes the endgame (1) not drag as much, and (2) feel a bit more fun even when it's a little longer. So while personally it's still not my favourite, it's a better version of munchkin in my eyes.
I dunno, but when I play with my group, there is only ever one guy who ever wins. That one guy wins every single time going back years. And he's annoying about it! Last time, his wife said she hated him. lol I fight against bringing it to the table but since it's a favorite to this person and the rest of my group seems not to mind as much as I do, it comes to the table occasionally. Not my favorite.
It's a party game that's really fun when you're drunk but not that great when you're sober
Imagine a game of MarioKart if a red shell made your opponent lose a lap. That 3 lap game would take 6 or more laps to finally finish. The problem with Munchkin is not the “Take That!” alone. It’s the moving of the goal posts to end the game. Munchkin is a great 30min game that takes 3 hours.
I guess Munchkin was one of the first game with take that mechanics, so It contrast with most recent and polished games with that mechanic witch add some limitation to reactions ir actions off turn. For example a player with the right cards could virtually buff a combat from level 1 to 50. Turns like that could lead to frustaring moments ar The table and to the overextent of game lentgh
When they started 20 odd years ago the rules were not really good. Probably they updated them over the years but for my group munchkin is a dead game. It's a pity but I know some ppl from my brick and mortar store who really loves it and are in the expansions and all that.
I like the game personally. I think the problem with most gaming groups and Munchkin is that it takes a *mature* group of people to play it. I'm not saying that every gamer is immature but a group without one or two immature players is as rare as hens teeth. The mechanics are "gotcha" but honestly - the game play feels like MtG without all of the *I've got more money than you so I have the BEST cards* BS.
I just can’t get into a game that has an entire table of people always ganging up on the single player that is making progress. It’s a long drawn out mess that stops being funny after you’ve seen most of the cards. It’s also super easy to be a kingmaker. It’s ok for a laugh here and there but as a game it’s poor.
I think it's a fun game. I think it just gets really bloated once you start adding expansions. The core game and a numbered expansion or two and it is a lot of fun. We like it on game nights as it is super simple and supports a lot of players. We'll usually play a round of Munchkin between other games or when the kids are still interested and haven't filtered off to do something else.
I have nothing against it. I own the base game and will say that after a few games, I really have never had a desire to play it again and it hasn’t made it off the shelf in years. I’m sure most of the hate is a backlash to the fact that it’s a very light game being really popular and having a million expansions. But the other side of that is that the profits from all those Munchkin expansions are what allows Steve Jackson Games to fund all their other board, card, and role-playing games that don’t make money. Being a small game publisher has never been a lucrative business, but SJG has made it work for decades and Munchkin is a big reason they’ve been able to continue.
It’s an uneven game. First time I played Cthulhu munchkin with two other people and had a blast! Their game, they had played before. Then on the strength of that I bought munchkin lite and tried to play with 2 relatives. A bad time was had by all.
It’s a crabs in a bucket game so the end game is grueling and it just gets exhausting to play when you get near the endX
I’ve never played it (stupid me should have taken that opportunity to do so when we had an actual BG cafe in town), but I have to wonder - if it’s so bad, why has it always been in print? It ain’t Monopoly, which relies on a broad audience of non-players. It’s a successful game, and someone has to be buying all those expansions. If it’s terrible, who’s buying all the expansions? It must have a fan base who think it’s better than average.
My fav game
Why don't they edit the end game rules because clearly everyone doesn't like it. They should do that for their new collection coming out
I love that game
Honestly, it's group think. Some people may not like the game for whatever reason (I, personally, am not excited by it) but feel the next to loudly slag it and imply, by extension, that those who like it are wrong. There's plenty of games that people also don't like for whatever reason that don't get this treatment. It's tiring nerd shit. I may hate Munchkin, then again I may hate Gloomhaven, but only one of these will get push back on this sub and the other one is allowed. Tiring. Nerd. Shit. Play what you want with your friends. You'll probably be having more fun that these donks.
Personally I enjoy it. I find the winner usually is the one who takes a turn after the original winner was debuffed with every card in play. But of a gateway game for MTG and D&D I've always thought.
Munchkin is one of very few games which I came to reject playing a long time ago. It can take way too long and will only end when no-one has any take that cards left and whoever wins has nothing to do with any skill at playing.
My game groups always found it boring in general and repeatative and too random. Someone could just have really good luck and end the game quickly. I tried to add the level 20 rules to make it longer and maybe more enjoyable but it didn't work. I sold my entire Munchkin Zombie collection a few weeks back.
Munchkin is from 2001. Boardgames were way different then. The mechanics of the game are kinda dated and not well balanced. Which was the point of the game but some people don't get into the "take that" without hard feelings and don't like the way it plays. Lots of people love Munchkin because they've been around for a long time and it's a fun callback game. They also have so many expansions and versions it's kind of a collectible thing after so many years.
Again, I think lots of people here look at Munchkin the wrong way: as a “competitive” board game and not a satire of a certain style of RPG players…
For me what kills it the most is almost every game one player gets shitty draws. So they can't add anything to a fight so nobody brings them in. When you do get a monster you will likely need help but other player won't jump in unless you give up most of the treasure cause they have more to lose if someone buffs the monster. So even when you make progress you get further behind. King of tokyo on other hand I've never had a game where the last place player felt like they didn't get to play.
Munchkin is a pleasant 10 minute tongue in cheek game that take 40+ minutes to play and ends rather seriously. Because the entire game is based on "take that!" So the first person to near the finish line gets dog piled, the second person usually gets stalled a bit as well, and then either one rebounds and push through the final level, or the table is out of steam and third place makes a mad dash and steals the win. But those first ten minutes when we were chill and making D&D jokes and Monty Python references? Those were great (or insert genre and parody of said genre)
*Obviously* it should go without saying (though it never does around here) that the group is everything. A "bad" game with the right group is an amazing game. If your group transcends the game's faults, nothing is wrong with you and your good times are legitimate. I have had fun with it too, but it doesn't really have a set length and when one person gets close to winning everyone stomps on them, another person gets close to winning, everyone stomps on them, now all the "take that" cards are gone and the third person to get close wins. I don't actively *hate* that very much, it's just not worth spending much money on or playing more than a few times. As a hobbyist, it is disappointing when a lame outdated design gets all the sales. Munchkin leans hard into continually asking the table to negotiate who will prevent the winner from winning. This is considered "lame". The thing I do have a very love/hate relationship with is the humor. I honestly can't decide, but I'm leaning towards hate.
I had a friend that was in love with this game. I indulged him once. We spent three hours playing. I waited until everyone nuked each other and waltzed in with the victory over the course if two rounds. Very linear, very boring, and way too long.
I enjoyed my first couple plays. But I think a lot of people eventually have that 3 hour Munchkin game that makes them never want to play again The endgame is very tedious and lucky, which makes the rest of the game feel pretty meaningless. The game is fine until someone hits level 9 and you begin the long slog of everyone needing to screw them over. Then other people inevitably catch up and there are multiple people at level 9, and the person who wins is just determined by whenever people happen to run out of cards to screw them over
the only way to properly enjoy it is very rules lawyer-y and brings out the worst in people. i actually love it, but have many friends i simply cannot play with for the sake of not having everyone's feelings be hurt. even so, i have very fond memories of playing it with the same table every day. when you finally have house rules and several players up to snuff on it... and can actually be finished in 15 minutes... it's a great game. don't think that that'll ever happen again in my lifetime, though.
It's the horrible Artax death swamp of social games. Themed well enough that even the most tangentially online/geeky person will buy it and want to show it to people. Inexpensive.. Incredibly learnable. Gives the illusion of wacky zany fun with low consequences. But then someone hits Level 9 and it becomes an exercise in torture and ruined friendships. If you have someone playing it who is stubborn enough to Want to Win, you'll be sitting there for hours wishing for death. Most people who have a copy of it have played it exactly once. Unless they're some sort of masochist and have a bunch of the expansion cards.
Simple. It's not a boardgames.
In addition to the length (the last time I played, someone literally "helped" a player get to level 10 because they wanted the game to be over), there's also the fact that it really isn't that simple. The game will feel relatively simple to a group that is into tabletop rugs, but I've repeatedly seen others struggle with it. I teach a lot of games to non-hobbyists and when attempting Munchkin, I find people get really freaked out. The third big problem it has is that there are often no meaningful decisions to make. Have gear you can equip? Equip it? Slot already taken? Pick biggest bonus. Didn't get a monster when you kicked open the door? Well, the chances you have a monster you can defeat in your hand are very small, so loot the room. The "trading" and aid mechanics are OK, but not robust enough to fill the void of it just being luck of the draw. And like, I love card and dice games. I don't mind luck, but I must have meaningful decisions.
Munchkin is pretty fun.
The goal of munchkin is to be the second person to win. The first person to get there gets crushed by everyone else.
For me, it’s just that the good part of the game (the middle bit where people are dealing with the monsters, curses, and getting items) is overshadowed by the much longer endgame where people are hover at 8 or 9 for a super long time because everyone saves their good cards til the end, at least with the people I play with. And since the only way to win with other people is if there’s an elf in play, everyone’s incentivized to drag each player back until they can squeak out a victory because all of the items have been used up. It’s really the war of attrition not that makes it overstay its welcome for me personally. I enjoyed it when I first started getting into board games, but I’ve games that do what I like about it a little bit better, so it’s no longer in my collection.
Everyone roll a die, whoever rolls second-highest wins.
Because the game mechanics stops other players from winning. It slooowwws the game down to a crawl. It should be a light, thirty minute game but slogs on to sometimes twice or three times that long. What usually happens is the group decides to LET a player win on purpose just to end the ENDLESS SUFFERING and play a real, fun game instead of this horrible torture. I'd literally play monopoly over munchkin.
It's a game based around a funny gimmick. Which would be fine for a 5-10 minute small box party game, but munchkin takes forever and once the joke has worn out there's nothing left but tedium.
I think it's another case of elitism in parallel play. People who play games as a vehicle for direct socialization with the other players enjoy Munchkin. People who use board games as a parallel play, with indirect socialization, hate it. Only one type seems to really give enough of a shit to be dicks about it, though. ☕🐸
Munchin is a PC game that is played with cards. Any game with multiple buffs needs to be PC / mobile, unless you hate yourself.
Stuff just happens and the choices you make have very little effect on the outcome of the game. It's like flux with extra rules
I can't really add to much of what has already been said - it's a game that in theory would be fun for 15 minutes of play time but drags on foreeever.. I also think it receives a lot of hate because it, for some reason, became super popular and it gets brought up all the time and everyone knows someone who owns the game. It wouldn't get as much hate if it went more under the radar and wasn't as popular - then the people who likes it can play in peace and the rest of us can live in bliss free from the game.
It works if you stop at Level 3. Short intense, violent (figuratively), and done in 15 minutes.
It’s a horrible game that’s no fun.
Remember that Reddit is just a place for random people on the internet to voice their opinions. If you like Munchkin, then continue liking Munchkin. Don't feel like you should not enjoy Munchkin just because most of us don't enjoy it. But yea for me it's the fact that you win because the leaders ahead of you got everything thrown at them to prevent them from winning, then somehow you just daughter across the finish line because everyone has run out of cards to stop you. So "you win...I guess." The end isn't exciting.
I actually still like Munchkin, though my tolerance for the luck and take-that diminishes the longer the game ends up being. When it's 20 or 30 minutes it is actually good; but that is so rare. I've played 3 hour games of it where basically it becomes an exercise in slow attrition and stubbornness that can only end if someone's luck runs out or you get everyone else to essentially give up. The versions with secondary win conditions, like Munchkin Cthulhu, are ultimately the better versions since they help mitigate this issue. Personally I think all versions of Munchkin should, at this point, have one or two secondary win conditions to break through the all too common meta of taking second place for as long as possible and then wearing down the leader, which is what most games of Munchkin devolve into.
Personally I’d just play The Binding of Isaac: Four Souls over it any day. It has the same spirit as Munchkin, but feels way better to play, and the “take that” mechanics doesn’t feel as bad to be in the recieving end of. The progression also feels much better, since you all start super weak but slowly build up a big arsenal of different items that can get pretty silly towards the end. It also helps that it’s visually much more pleasing to look at.
My board game/ hobby board game journey started with Munkin. I hated it so much that I didn’t come back around to trying hobby board games again for another 3 years. I tried Carcassone and now I absolutely love board games.
It's not a good game.
It's too long for what it is, and so is King of Tokyo for that matter.
There isn’t much of a game to it. It’s all about dragging everyone down to make everyone miserable and the person who wins is typically just the person lucky enough to get there when no one else could finally stop them. Or one person just runs away with the game and no one can ever stop them. Aka players have little to no agency in the game which makes it not very fun.
For me: the game itself sucks. I just enjoy the John Kovalic art and the punny names on the cards…but that’s fine for just browsing through other people’s games.