Now where “powergamers” are most abusive is when they manipulate the social contract. They whine to the GM for special favors. They do things not in the spirit of the game, but technically by the rules. They manipulate D&D’s alignment system. Some of that can be cured by using a tighter system, or one that better suits the group. But the player himself may have an issue that can’t be resolved.

Frank

Frank: I suspect you and I have different default definitions of “powergaming” — I don’t think it’s a bad thing when defined your way.

When I use the term, though, it’s to denote a style of play where kewl stuff trumps every other consideration, including how much (or, more aptly, how little) fun everyone else is having in the game.

Scott: Good point about general insecurity vs. AGMS. A lot of bad GMing behaviors stem from poor social skills (ditto with bad gaming tendencies in general), at least in my experience.

Kestral: That sounds about right to me — I always reserve the right to bring in new house rules during play, and make sure to consult my players (or at least provide a clear explanation) before implementing them.

I disagree. A GM should be willing to implement houserules on a whim, but only when it makes things better/easier/faster for the GM and the players.

Is a specific rule slowing down the game unnecessarily? Then it should be OK to implement a houserule to make play faster.

Unnecessary houserules are a pain, but they’re a matter of social contract.

No you can’t and rail roading are mostly the mark of someone who isn’t ready to improvise. If your players are comfortable with that form of play– or are willing to suffer through it while you gain confidence– it’ll work out. Several of John Kim’s Models of Adventure Structure use these restrictions. (These can also come about because your system is too prep heavy; if it takes three hours to make a good encounter, then you can’t improvise an encounter in the middle of the session.)

Many house rules come about as the result of trying to use a system for what it isn’t made for. Again, this seems to be a confidence issue– or a game group issue. If you want to run an interesting political game, but you’re using a system that only has a detailed combat engine, you’ll be bored with how little you’re engaging the system. The obvious solution is to expand the political skills portion, making it like the fun combat system. An experienced GM (or a GM with a good group) can pick a system that’s better suited for their needs. If the GM or the group want to stick with the current system, then house ruling or going into freeform play are the only solutions to getting the play you want.

Extensive pre-campaign guidelines can also have many sources. Sometimes they’re a bad thing (much like characters with 10 page histories). Usually, however, the extra information reflects the GM’s interests; if it’s a homebrew world, the GM may have plotted out the last thousand years of history. That won’t lead to bad GMing, though poor presentation denies the other players the contents for all practical purposes. Still, the contents themselves don’t make the game worse.

All of that said, I agree with the main thrust of the post. Avoiding these behaviors will often make your game more interesting to your players– resulting in more fun for the whole group (including the GM).

One thing I’ve come to understant recently, there’s nothing wrong with power gaming, and in fact, I quite enjoy it. The trick is that the rules set has to really support it well. I used to consider Cold Iron a defense against power gaming/gamist play. What I realize now is that it’s totally not that. It’s totally a power gaming/gamist enabling system. The reason I enjoy running it is that the power gaming aspect actually works, and works for my tastes in power gaming. Now it turns out that D20 is along the same lines, however, I still cringe at parts of D20 (and mostly I think it’s saddled with some holdover from previous editions that limits it, plus I think they’ve gone and made the GM prep too complex).

Actually, when I look back at my gaming, things have actually been pretty good. Oh, sure, there have been plenty of non-memorable games, but there’s been very little horribly dysfunctional gaming.

As to a one page campaign summary – that’s something I’ve been trying to perfect. One thing my campaign summaries now are is more honest about play style. I no longer use the phrase “role playing not roll playing” (because such a phrase is totally meaningless in my mind). I’m up front that my games are combat heavy (perhaps even hack ‘n slash). But I also know that I run a much more interesting game than “Monster Manual from A-Z.”

Frank

The GM that runs a system without house rules in advance, but impliments house rules on a whim also needs beaten with a wet noodle. I’ve played in several games where I get to a certain situation and find the rules aren’t going to work for my character like I thought. It turned my off of a D&D game with a group I really like recently.

Point 5 is also important. GM’s that get used to players that aren’t pro-active have adopted a style where the important clue always shows up at every single session. It ruins the hell out of things for people that like the exploration and discovery elements.

Lastly, I’m going to agree with a poster above but add GM’s should be REQUIRED to have an overall one page summary of a campaign to pass out before any game. I think the disconnect between player expectations has killed far too many games when it could be remedied with a simple campaign background sheet that could let people see if something is going to come up that goes against their play style.

And in practical terms there are plenty of good players who won’t read more than a page or so of info.