Let's Get Real - the DM's responsibility is balance

[Reach Weapon]

I'm also the only person in my group that uses these forums (or any DND forums) and it has made a noticeable impact on how I approach 5e vs how my friends approach 5e. They approach things much looser, they're very open to bending rules and they don't agonize of remembering that sage advice ruling on Shield Master or what the most recent "correct" ruling is. I think its fair to say these forums are a bubble and not all that indicative of how people would generally engage with these sorts of things.

I also don't think the statement was meant to be derogatory, I think despite discussion trending towards the "raw is god" direction here people are reasonable enough to understand "yes this is RAW and I prefer it, but you don't have to."

I don't actually see any sort of elevation of RAW for it's own sake here, and certainly not in any sort of religious fervor.

I'd argue that any unifying principles I've noted are more around the ability of players to demonstrate (exploit) mastery of game mechanics, and that RAW is more a useful tool for making what should be the most universally correct predictions on how things work.

More directly, I think there are orders of magnitude more support (in multiple means of that word) for rule alteration here, than there is for loose and unpredictable rulings.

[OldTrees1]

The casual use of statements such as "it's not broken if some can fix it is a fallacy"

Huh? Is your understanding of that phrase the same as those that use it?

It is pointing out that John not having a problem does not mean Sally is wrong about her subjective experience.
It is pointing out that despite the ability to modify a product, the product is sold in and as its initial state.

Aka when a consumer makes a review of a product, and they are told "You are wrong about your subjective experience. If you did all this extra work then your problem would be resolved. Your statement about your dislike about the initial product is wrong because the massively modified product dispels your dislike.". Well, eventually they would have a name for that irrational dismissive argument.

/exit

[Pex]

The casual use of statements such as "it's not broken if some can fix it is a fallacy"

It's shorthand for the concept to call it that. I'll name it. 'The Oberoni Fallacy". You may not value it, but others do. It's called a "fallacy" as a play on words for the Logical Fallacies of debate.

Bob says Rule A is a problem because of Reasons. Carl says Rule A is fine because he changes it. That's the fallacy. Hooray for Carl he found a solution, but it does not change the fact Rule A is a problem for Bob because of Reasons. Bob can make his own changes. He can even adopt Carl's changes. That does not change Rule A being a problem. That it needs those changes is the proof Rule A is a problem. You defend Carl's position. Fine, but others just as forthrightly defend Bob's position. Alice might even agree 5E sides with Carl as a design feature, and that is precisely why she has a problem with 5E considering it a design flaw of the game itself.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Someone having a subjective problem with something does not make that thing flawed objectively. That's the entire point here. Someone having a subjective problem says nothing about the thing itself. And the so-called Oberoni fallacy (which is not a fallacy, and this attempt at arrogating the status of formal logic is manipulative, since just giving something a name does not mean anything) claims that it does. Edit: And I'll say that most of the time, use of "named fallacies" is a blatant attempt to overawe people and convince them that they're wrong for bringing it up. It's an attempt to squelch any conversation that disagrees with the poster, nothing more. In fact, my personal heuristic is that playing the fallacy card in an online conversation is a tell that that speaker is likely trying to prevent any real discussion that might oppose them without doing the hard work of actually convincing anyone of anything. It's a ding against credibility and a conversation smell, it's weaponized vocabulary.

Because to say otherwise I'd to say that someone having a problem using a pitchfork as a soup spoon means there's something wrong with the pitchfork. Which is... Just not useful. Knowing that someone has a problem with something tells me exactly and only that. That that person has a problem.

I change things that are not objective problems, because I have subjective preferences that the current implementation does not meet. The existence or not of a change is utterly orthogonal to the existence or not of an objective problem. And it's the conflation of subjective preferences and objective problems that I am pushing back against. Are there objective problems? Likely. Are there cases where the design does not meet people's subjective preferences? Absolutely. But those two are not definitionally the same set, even if at times they may overlap.

Beyond that--most of the "I changed it" statements I've seen for subjective problems stated here boil down to "I read what's written in context and applied it in common sense ways". Ie "used it as intended." That's not a change, that's following expected procedures. An analogy--I hear many of my tech-savvy acquaintances complain about windows always crashing/doing odd things on them. As it turns out, those are the same people who reach into the guts and do all sorts of unsupported manipulations to "customize" or "remove telemetry" or "streamline" things. No duh. Use it in unsupported ways and it breaks. That's not Window's fault. The answer to "it hurts when I do <thing that's obviously harmful>" is "stop doing that." And that's what 90% (number pulled ex nihilo) of the complaints here boil down to in my considered opinion. That or "I want the basic design to be completely different." Which is fine...but again that's not a flaw. Not a defect. Maybe a feature request, but not a defect.

[OldTrees1]

Someone having a subjective problem with something does not make that thing flawed objectively. That's the entire point here. Someone having a subjective problem says nothing about the thing itself. And the so-called Oberoni fallacy ...

You are fighting a strawman after I pointed out where the farmer was standing.

Bob is talking about their subjective problem with Rule A.

Carl says Bob is wrong about Bob's subjective experience because Carl's subjective experience with replacing Rule A with Rule D means Bob is wrong about Bob's subjective experience with Rule A.

Why should Bob be convinced that Carl knows Bob's subjective experience better than Bob?
Why should Carl's subjective experience about Rule D contradict Bob's subjective experience with Rule A?
What are the limits on what Carl's subjective experience about Rule D inform us about Rule A?

[Chaos Jackal]

"It's not broken if I can fix it", an Oberoni generalization, is indeed a fallacy, yes. By definition. If it's not broken, why are you talking about fixing? If I bought a car that was missing a wheel, does being able to buy and attach a new wheel mean that I didn't buy a defective car?

And in regards to the "3e RAW is god" mentality being mentioned, that's not the case in the 5e forum, it's not the case in the 3.X forum, and it's generally not the case in forums outside GitP either. That's just a belief resulting from narrow-mindedness and refusal to accept that debating requires some common framework, and RAW is the one common framework people have when discussing D&D with randoms from across the globe online.

People arguing for RAW change or bend the rules in their tables as well; it's not like people in the 3.X forums are playing with drown healing, Pun-Pun, StP Erudites having access to every spell in the game as a power or anything of the kind; people in the 5e forums aren't playing with simulacrum chains, infinite HP necromancers or coffeelocks. But one can't use personal solutions, experiences or tables as a global truth; the RAW is the only truly common ground. "Ask your DM" is a common reply, at the very least as an addendum, precisely to note that a rule might be written like this, but not everyone will interpret it the same way. That's not some ultra-rigid, RAW-only culture. It's simply reasonable debating.

[Cheesegear]

Someone having a subjective problem with something does not make that thing flawed objectively.

However, there is a common logical conclusion:
How many people, subjectively disagreeing with a thing, have to be counted before the community and/or the authority recognise that objectively, the subjective disagreement is objectively correct?

Unfortunately, this is also an appeal to authority:
If the designers of the game don't change the 'problem', then there isn't a problem, and it's designed in such a way to be flawed. On purpose. This may be construed as 'bad game design'. Why the **** did you design it this way?

On the other hand, if the designers of the game do fix something, then it was a problem the entire time, and those who disagree just have to deal with the new change.

This is where something like UA comes in, and the inevitable books that print the material.

X people like the UA.
Y people dislike the UA.

When the book is printed, X or Y becomes the new objective truth. Even though all feedback was more or less subjective. The printed material comes from UA, with the positive and negative subjective opinions.

That's the entire point here. Someone having a subjective problem says nothing about the thing itself.

What if a lot of people have a subjective problem? For any given definition of 'a lot'. It's literally how we get Xanathar's and Tasha's.

And the so-called Oberoni fallacy (which is not a fallacy)

If the GM can fix it, then game isn't broken, and therefore good.

If it isn't broken, then why does it need fixing?

I can't tell you if it's a formal, or an informal fallacy. I don't know enough about rhetoric. But it is a fallacious argument, nonetheless.

[Xervous]

What does it take for something in a system to be objectively flawed?

[Brookshw]

If the GM can fix it, then game isn't broken, and therefore good.

If it isn't broken, then why does it need fixing?

I can't tell you if it's a formal, or an informal fallacy. I don't know enough about rhetoric. But it is a fallacious argument, nonetheless.

Oberoni fallacy is, in turn and as often used, committing a fallacy of its own by asserting a conclusion as a premise (Begging the Question), i.e., that a thing is in fact broken. Actual broken rules are very few and far between, a rule has to not work to be broken. For a classic example from 3e, hiding behind a Tower Shield makes you invisible; not broken, works fine, just doesn't work how people think it was intended. Once you start questioning intents and subjective appeal (e.g., martial vs. caster disparity, PHB ranger is bad, etc.) you're already outside of the objective analysis required in the first place to determine if something is broken. Its usually/likely a matter of poor word choice on the part of the speaker who asserts something is broken when they probably mean, to Phoenix' point, they dislike something.

Anyway, I just popped up to say Oberoni's fallacy is stupid. Carry on.

[Cheesegear]

What does it take for something in a system to be objectively flawed?

Does a rule do what it's supposed to? Is a rule fit-for-purpose?

Unfortunately, the only way to know if a rule does what it's supposed to, is to ask the designers, and designers rarely - if ever - come right out and say that they made a bad product. What they usually do, however, is come out with an updated product, and they let the product speak for itself (e.g; Tasha's Rangers, and Primal Companions. It's blindingly obvious what that is an answer to).

We, on a forum, will never know if the game is objectively broken, because we don't know what the design goal for any given thing, was. We can try to make educated guesses based on what the designers might have been thinking (e.g; The Fighter [Champion] sucks, because it's literally designed to be easy-to-play). But we'll never know if a given rule was meant to be the way it was, unless it's changed via FAQ or Errata.

If a rule is changed, by the authority, we know that the rule was bad. Because why else would they change it?
If a rule is not changed, we know that the rule is meant to be the way that it is. So, while a rule may be bad, that rule might be bad, on purpose...And thus not actually 'flawed', per se. We just hate the rule as consumers and want it changed anyway.

[ad_hoc]

An adjustable chair is not defective just because its default position is not to the user's liking.

It's the whole point of being adjustable.

5e is designed to be adjustable. Ability Checks are designed to have the DM choose when to call for them, what abilities to use, what DC to set, and the consequences for failure.

It's a feature.

[Corey]

An adjustable chair is not defective just because its default position is not to the user's liking.

It's the whole point of being adjustable.

5e is designed to be adjustable. Ability Checks are designed to have the DM choose when to call for them, what abilities to use, what DC to set, and the consequences for failure.

It's a feature.

A universally unwelcome default is a flaw. But it's a minor flaw if it's easily changed.

(Often minor flaws in physical objects are deliberately introduced because they make transportation easier. A chair that's compressed to have the seat too low might be an example of that. A more obvious class of examples is of course "Some assembly required".)

A D&D rule that most tables want to change is probably a flaw as well. But if it's easily and commonly changed, then that flaw is minor.

[Snowbluff]

Anyway, I just popped up to say Oberoni's fallacy is stupid. Carry on.

Agreed. I don't think anyone's enjoyment of a game will hinge on whether or not, say, you can drown someone to get them up to 0 HP. Some games will be more comfortable with certain power levels and tricks, others will not be. Oberoni's premise is that there is one acceptable level of play for all tables when really there just is not.

As for "RAW is god", it is, because we're on an internet forum, and we all need a common ground to discuss on. Unless someone is specifically asking for a rules change suggestion or has some optional ruling from a tweet, there's not much point in automatically assuming there's some other set of rules than the ones we are given.

[Unoriginal]

What does it take for something in a system to be objectively flawed?

When the something in question simply does not work.

Ex:

Shapechanger: If the vampire isn't in sun light or running water, it can use its action to polymorph into a Tiny bat or a Medium cloud of mist, or back into its true form.

[...]

While in mist form, the vampire can't take any actions, speak, or manipulate objects.

Meaning that if one takes the ability at face value, the vampire cannot voluntarily turn back into their true form once they've become mist.

[Mr. Wonderful]

That’s much more reasonable than your earlier posts.

My position hasn't changed. I'm just learning how to speak the language of these forums.

[Easy e]

I think I am aligned with Mr. Wonderful.

However, I am also in the unpopular camp that a GM can do whatever it takes to make the game fun for all players. Rules are for players, and not GMs with that caveat that the Players need the "Illusion" that the rules apply to all.

I am finding that this is an unpopular opinion.

[Xervous]

I think I am aligned with Mr. Wonderful.

However, I am also in the unpopular camp that a GM can do whatever it takes to make the game fun for all players. Rules are for players, and not GMs with that caveat that the Players need the "Illusion" that the rules apply to all.

I am finding that this is an unpopular opinion.

The rules provide a framework for consistency that allows the players to reliably interact with the world through the GM. They’re a set of shared assumptions that would otherwise be filled by GM assumptions or something resulting from player-GM discourse.

The tricky points of making the game fun for all players are that it’s often a balancing act, and that it’s no simple task to measure how successful your methods are. If we conservatively assume that a change which does not otherwise impact enjoyment cost us a quantity of enjoyment (wasted effort) then there exists a set of changes that do not bring enough enjoyment to warrant their introduction even if a game that possesses them would be marginally more enjoyable than one that does not.

Change stuff, change it with good reason, change it early and loudly (session 0 or addressing a critical system flaw you stumbled on), and don’t spend too much (table) time changing it. Don’t lead players to think they’re playing calvinball... unless they signed up for that explicitly.

[ad_hoc]

A universally unwelcome default is a flaw. But it's a minor flaw if it's easily changed.

(Often minor flaws in physical objects are deliberately introduced because they make transportation easier. A chair that's compressed to have the seat too low might be an example of that. A more obvious class of examples is of course "Some assembly required".)

A D&D rule that most tables want to change is probably a flaw as well. But if it's easily and commonly changed, then that flaw is minor.

What rules do most tables want to change?

Agreed. I don't think anyone's enjoyment of a game will hinge on whether or not, say, you can drown someone to get them up to 0 HP. Some games will be more comfortable with certain power levels and tricks, others will not be. Oberoni's premise is that there is one acceptable level of play for all tables when really there just is not.

As for "RAW is god", it is, because we're on an internet forum, and we all need a common ground to discuss on. Unless someone is specifically asking for a rules change suggestion or has some optional ruling from a tweet, there's not much point in automatically assuming there's some other set of rules than the ones we are given.

Often the RAW in 5e is 'the DM makes a decision' which some people on the internet don't like. So they don't accept that the rules are what they are and they argue about it. Some go so far as to say the rules are objectively bad or broken because they don't like them.

[Easy e]

The rules provide a framework for consistency that allows the players to reliably interact with the world through the GM. They’re a set of shared assumptions that would otherwise be filled by GM assumptions or something resulting from player-GM discourse.

The tricky points of making the game fun for all players are that it’s often a balancing act, and that it’s no simple task to measure how successful your methods are. If we conservatively assume that a change which does not otherwise impact enjoyment cost us a quantity of enjoyment (wasted effort) then there exists a set of changes that do not bring enough enjoyment to warrant their introduction even if a game that possesses them would be marginally more enjoyable than one that does not.

Change stuff, change it with good reason, change it early and loudly (session 0 or addressing a critical system flaw you stumbled on), and don’t spend too much (table) time changing it. Don’t lead players to think they’re playing calvinball... unless they signed up for that explicitly.

But, those are the rules for D&D; Calvinball. DMG is a "Guide", not rules. Only players really have rules. D&D tries to hide it with stat blocks, key words and the like, but it is all made up. The only "rule" that really matters in an RPG is how to determine PC success or failure. The rest are all optional, made-up, fluff.

Also, it is pretty easy to measure fun. You solicit feedback, frequently. Now, you could even make it statistically rigorous with a 1-5 scaled survey and measure it over time and the like, but that is going overboard for the sake of analysis. Trying to create a formula for "FUN" is not going to work that well, but if that is what you find fun; go for it!

If your table is not having fun, it is not hard to find out. Ask them. They will even tell you WHY they are not having fun, and you can adjust.

[OldTrees1]

But, those are the rules for D&D; Calvinball. DMG is a "Guide", not rules. Only players really have rules. D&D tries to hide it with stat blocks, key words and the like, but it is all made up. The only "rule" that really matters in an RPG is how to determine PC success or failure. The rest are all optional, made-up, fluff.

Also, it is pretty easy to measure fun. You solicit feedback, frequently. Now, you could even make it statistically rigorous with a 1-5 scaled survey and measure it over time and the like, but that is going overboard for the sake of analysis. Trying to create a formula for "FUN" is not going to work that well, but if that is what you find fun; go for it!

If your table is not having fun, it is not hard to find out. Ask them. They will even tell you WHY they are not having fun, and you can adjust.

As a DM I can tell you, there are rules for DMs. The exact details of rules -1, -2, -3, etc are dependent on your playgroup. I suspect one of those rules in Xervous's group details limitations on the playgroup's tolerance for frequently or chaotically shifting rules.

However yes. The DM has the power to change the game rules, as long as they do so within the rules of the group.

[Pex]

Oberoni fallacy is, in turn and as often used, committing a fallacy of its own by asserting a conclusion as a premise (Begging the Question), i.e., that a thing is in fact broken. Actual broken rules are very few and far between, a rule has to not work to be broken. For a classic example from 3e, hiding behind a Tower Shield makes you invisible; not broken, works fine, just doesn't work how people think it was intended. Once you start questioning intents and subjective appeal (e.g., martial vs. caster disparity, PHB ranger is bad, etc.) you're already outside of the objective analysis required in the first place to determine if something is broken. Its usually/likely a matter of poor word choice on the part of the speaker who asserts something is broken when they probably mean, to Phoenix' point, they dislike something.

Anyway, I just popped up to say Oberoni's fallacy is stupid. Carry on.

No. Oberoni Fallacy says nothing of the kind. It does not declare something is broken. The Fallacy is in telling someone they're wrong to have a problem with a rule because you don't have a problem with it since you changed it. For example, some people don't like the -5/+10 part of Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter. Others disagree they're a problem. That's all that it is, a disagreement. Oberoni Fallacy comes in when someone says "You're wrong, those feats are fine. Change it to minus proficiency to hit/plus double proficiency to damage, and they work great." The proposed solution on how to fix the feats is ok, but the fallacy is telling people they're wrong in thinking the feats are a problem because this proposed solution exists. Oberoni Fallacy makes no value judgment on the feats. People can like them or don't like them regardless.

An adjustable chair is not defective just because its default position is not to the user's liking.

It's the whole point of being adjustable.

5e is designed to be adjustable. Ability Checks are designed to have the DM choose when to call for them, what abilities to use, what DC to set, and the consequences for failure.

It's a feature.

We can agree the game was purposely designed that way. We can also say we don't care for that design. We are absolutely stating the game designers should not have made that decision. We have to accept it to play the game or make up our own stuff, but we're allowed to resent having to make up our own stuff and try to convince the designers not to do that for the hypothetical next edition.

[ad_hoc]

We can agree the game was purposely designed that way. We can also say we don't care for that design. We are absolutely stating the game designers should not have made that decision. We have to accept it to play the game or make up our own stuff, but we're allowed to resent having to make up our own stuff and try to convince the designers not to do that for the hypothetical next edition.

Nothing wrong with that.

Just keep in mind who the 'we' is in this situation.

[Kane0]

Oberoni fallacy is, in turn and as often used, committing a fallacy of its own by asserting a conclusion as a premise (Begging the Question), i.e., that a thing is in fact broken.

Anyway, I just popped up to say Oberoni's fallacy is stupid. Carry on.

No. Oberoni Fallacy says nothing of the kind. It does not declare something is broken. The Fallacy is in telling someone they're wrong to have a problem with a rule because you don't have a problem with it since you changed it.

The Oberoni Fallacy has also been paraphrased in the past such that the word 'broken' is not necessary to describe it.

"There isn't a problem because you can easily correct it"
"There is no inconsistency because you can always retcon it"
"That's not a loophole because the rule can be changed"

The Oberoni Fallacy is just an game-mechanics specific application of a Non sequitur. The second half does not logically flow from the first.

[Xervous]

But, those are the rules for D&D; Calvinball. DMG is a "Guide", not rules. Only players really have rules. D&D tries to hide it with stat blocks, key words and the like, but it is all made up. The only "rule" that really matters in an RPG is how to determine PC success or failure. The rest are all optional, made-up, fluff.

Also, it is pretty easy to measure fun. You solicit feedback, frequently. Now, you could even make it statistically rigorous with a 1-5 scaled survey and measure it over time and the like, but that is going overboard for the sake of analysis. Trying to create a formula for "FUN" is not going to work that well, but if that is what you find fun; go for it!

If your table is not having fun, it is not hard to find out. Ask them. They will even tell you WHY they are not having fun, and you can adjust.

Seems needlessly reductionist, not to mention missing the point of invoking calvinball. The value in being able to say “let’s play D&D” is the broad summary of specific concepts that short message conveys. If the rules are truly just arsepullomancy that players are incapable of knowing before the rule is invoked it is a structure that would produce wildly varied results that each require their own lengthy explanation to understand. Instead we have copious examples of the transferable experience enabled by the rules.

Change enough and it will be unrecognizable, a new game for a player to learn, but this will be an exception for a typical table hopping player rather than the norm.

[Frogreaver]

Seems needlessly reductionist, not to mention missing the point of invoking calvinball. The value in being able to say “let’s play D&D” is the broad summary of specific concepts that short message conveys. If the rules are truly just arsepullomancy that players are incapable of knowing before the rule is invoked it is a structure that would produce wildly varied results that each require their own lengthy explanation to understand. Instead we have copious examples of the transferable experience enabled by the rules.

Change enough and it will be unrecognizable, a new game for a player to learn, but this will be an exception for a typical table hopping player rather than the norm.

I must invoke The ship of Theseus

[KorvinStarmast]

And no player should EVER feel: "oh, I am playing the wrong class, I might as well check my phone while the bard or the ranger carries the party." It's FINE that certain classes have advantages - whether its combat, social or exploration - but no one should be left out. GOOD roleplayers look forward to failing, as long as it is FUN.

Whey you make a "never" or "always" kind of statement, you can usually predict that as a result you will be wrong.

Adventurers League has a nice feature that allows any player to respec before level 5. Most tables I play at, if the player begins to have Buyer's Remorse as regards a PC, the DM and the Player get together and put together a new package and try that out.

This Is A Game. Play to have fun. If you aren't having fun, change what you are doing. If the class/character just isn't working, retire that PC and create another one.

How hard is this? Not at all.

In my brother's campaign:
I retired my life cleric (because we had two clerics, and because a fluke RP situation with a 00 roll on the DM's dice resulted in her getting pregnant after a night of drinking and bedroom sports) and introduced a Celestial Warlock. She's alive and well.
The guy playing the other cleric not long after that retired the cleric and created a Valor Bard. He's doing great, is attracting groupies and a cult following as we go from town to town, and my warlock uses the ritual "skywrite" to advertise on the nights that he puts on a show to make a little money/get a little fame.

My nephew, who had a seriously lethal Rogue/Scout MC with Hunter Ranger, who with a +1 long bow was a veritable DPR deity, retired that PC - he ran off with two not lady NPCs we'd run into during the narrative arc of finding the actual heir to the kingdom - and brought in a UA warlock (the one that predated Celestial). While I wish he had not (we didn't need another full caster, our wizard is rather effective, and I had a warlock), but as it's worked out I passed along my warcaster wand to him when I tripped over a rod of the pact keeper and it's worked out.
In the Giants campaign (TftYP) we had one player retire his level 11 wizard (Loremaster, it was very powerful) and start a paladin. Got tired of that and picked up a Gloomstalker Ranger.

All with little to no difficulty.

The DM's job is to create narrative tension and situations for the players to engage with.
The players' job is to play their characters.

[Xervous]

As a DM I can tell you, there are rules for DMs. The exact details of rules -1, -2, -3, etc are dependent on your playgroup. I suspect one of those rules in Xervous's group details limitations on the playgroup's tolerance for frequently or chaotically shifting rules.

However yes. The DM has the power to change the game rules, as long as they do so within the rules of the group.

If we accept the premise that the DMG has no rules for GMs by intent, what are we to make of the masses who all conform to those suggestions? Do we not have a sufficient population of GMs in agreement, each of their chosen rules informed by the same source, such that asking an ignorant observer to discern the rules of the game by sampling N tables would yield a consistent list of GM rules that is a sizable subset of the source’s suggestions? If the game says it has no rules for the GM, what do Mr Ignorant’s observations mean?

[KorvinStarmast]

Which means that the system isn't broken here; we just disagree on what it should do. Which is totally fine. But we should be honest about the fact that we're discussing matters of taste and opinion, not objective truth.

Taking such a reasonable position prevents the pastime of getting on one's high horse, though.

The 5e base rules, by and large, do exactly what they promise. It's just that what they promise isn't what some people want. And then they conflate "not what I want" with "is bad".

I still do not like the "as you go up in level you don't get better in all saving throws" which was in the original game that I played for so long. But I have accepted it.

Or it could really be "is bad" but a few people like it anyway.

Given the size of the player base, the vast majority like it, and a few sulky folks don't. (And lucky for them, there are many other find games to play).

As usual, I agree with PheonixPhyre.

It's easy to do.

A player's mindstate is not "PLAYING" and "NOT PLAYING", it should always be somewhere between the two, that's how you make the player stay engaged.

Nicely put. I like your theme on the issue with binary expectations.

I think spells need to be neutered.
I think magic items that do spells need to be more plentiful and accessible.

That's very old school of you. And I am a big fan of trimming the spell book considerably.

Wizard: At Level 5, I'll pick up Lightning Bolt and Fly, also all my Cantrips are better.
Barbarian: At Level 5, I'll grab a Javelin of Lightning and some Winged Boots, also I'll get Extra Attack.
DM: ...Umm, no Barbarian. You can't do that.
Barbarian: What do you mean? Extra Attack is on my class table.
DM: No I meant you don't just get a Javelin of Lightning and Winged Boots.
Barbarian: But the Wizard just gets Lightning Bolt and Fly?
DM: ...Yes?

I confess, I chuckled.

I believe that the back part of the PHB needs to get cut in half. At minimum.
I also believe that magic items that do what gets removed from the PHB, get added.
I also believe that 'mundanes' should be able to cast from Scrolls, so long as the character has spent at least one long rest reading the scroll. Kind of like an attunement. I also believe that Scrolls, or spell instructions, should be able to be used to imbue magic items, temporarily and/or permanently.

Interesting line of approach ...

I don't want a player like that at the table so it works for me. Someone who doesn't want to engage in at least 1/3 of the game we're playing is not welcome to play at all.

Being picky about who you play with isn't a bad idea, if you want a harmonious table where you are all on the same page. But having a big enough group to select from isn't a luxury we all have.

I completely disagree with the title - the DM's responsibility is to be fair.

Maybe a better response than mine. *golf clap*

The simplest way for balance to be achieved is for both the DM and the players to engage with each other in the game being played.

What a concept; the DM isn't the enemy. Are we allowed to even think that?

The DM should run the world, the PCs should interact with it, and the DM then determines the world's response to the players' decisions.

And oddly enough, that's even stated in the PHB in "how to play" in chapter 1. Maybe more folks ought to read the whole PHB, as you already have. *applause for Jon*

Balance cannot be forced upon the group. It is created through the participation of the group members.

I like this thought: players competing with each other is a different game, not D&D 5e.

I've found that measures to help people be engaged is the way to make decent players and to keep games going. {snip} I want players to be bummed out if they have to miss (part of) a session, because they know they're going to miss out on being engaged with the world, the events, the struggles and successes of the party.

You have achieved that with our group, to be sure. I hope (and I suspect that it's true, based on the stories in the wiki) that the kids you DM'd for at the school where you taught had a similar experience.

Good DMs should be responsive to the desires of their players. Finding narrative-consistent ways of allowing (not mandating, allowing) everyone to be doing something they like in as many scenes as possible is (part of) the art of good DMing. Yes, that frequently means (gasp) tailoring the scenarios to the players and their likes and dislikes. Instead of running with a pre-plotted railroad, desires and interests not considered. It means abandoning player-facing neutrality; it involves actually talking to the players and figuring out what everyone likes. And it involves compromise and willingness to bite on "hooks" on the part of the players. If each player is only thinking of themselves at all times, you don't have a party or a friend group. You have a bunch of individuals sitting in the same room[1]. And that's not what I spend so much effort trying to prepare for.

This, so much this. "We are a team" is a core conceit of the game. Players who do not buy into that are a part of the problem, not a part of the solution.
[QUOTE=Unoriginal;25191953] I'd be very grateful if you could humor me and answer those three questions, then:

1) Can you light a candle with Green Flame Blade?

If you hit a creature, like a fly or a spider, that is within five feet of it then yes! Use a dagger or you might knock over some furniture or the bric a brac, though ...

2) Can you create a fight-capable shortsword out of ice with Shape Water?

Yes, but the fighter may have trouble holding on to it. (A quick wrap of something around the hilt may solve this)

3) Can Mordenkainen's Faithful Hound detect if a creature is hostile to its caster if said creature didn't do anything toward the caster yet but is planning to (ex: an assassin disguised as one of the caster's allies, who is walking toward the caster to stab them)?

Never used the spell, no idea on that one.

And more importantly, would you consider that a DM who answers differently than you fail to meet the "a DM being fair, wanting the game fun for everyone, not being a jerk, etc." assumption?

Heh, one of the best questions asked on this forum in a while.

1. Roleplaying. People with more real-world life experience, a wide social circle, and more empathic connections (e.g; TV/Movies, Books, etc.) will be better at roleplaying than other players. The game is unbalanced. It is nearly impossible to balance this.

*golf clap*

[OldTrees1]

If we accept the premise that the DMG has no rules for GMs by intent, what are we to make of the masses who all conform to those suggestions? Do we not have a sufficient population of GMs in agreement, each of their chosen rules informed by the same source, such that asking an ignorant observer to discern the rules of the game by sampling N tables would yield a consistent list of GM rules that is a sizable subset of the source’s suggestions? If the game says it has no rules for the GM, what do Mr Ignorant’s observations mean?

I wish I had a better name than "Mr Ignorant" for your hypothetical observer.

I expect most of their observations would be the rules the GM is imposing on the campaign. They will find lots of common rules since lots of GMs use the default campaign rules (with perhaps some modifications). These rules do not bind the GM (unless they do, we will get there).

However "Mr Ignorant" might also notice some GMs run with rules that restrict themselves. For example "I don't fudge dice rolls" is a common rule. Mr Ignorant might notice greater variation in these rules. Ultimately these rules don't bind the GM either since they are self imposed and can be changed if the reason they are self imposed changes.

But what if Mr Ignorant dug a little deeper in their observations? They might notice tables with players walking away. They might notice tables having open discussions about what kind of game the group wants. Etc. If Mr Ignorant is observant enough to catch these details, then they have found the rules that actually bind the GM.

Based on all these layers Mr Ignorant observed and the multiple tables they observed, their observations would describe:
3) The Social layer of the game where the various players agree on what rules should apply to which players. For example should all but 1 player agree to grant that final player authority over campaign rules? Any taboo subjects? How frequently will we meet?
2) The GM's self imposed limits
1) The rules of the campaign

[Mr. Wonderful]

Wizard: At Level 5, I'll pick up Lightning Bolt and Fly, also all my Cantrips are better.
Barbarian: At Level 5, I'll grab a Javelin of Lightning and some Winged Boots, also I'll get Extra Attack.
DM: ...Umm, no Barbarian. You can't do that.
Barbarian: What do you mean? Extra Attack is on my class table.
DM: No I meant you don't just get a Javelin of Lightning and Winged Boots.
Barbarian: But the Wizard just gets Lightning Bolt and Fly?
DM: ...Yes?

This is actually a pretty good summary of what I think is the real friction here. The Wizard gets some very cool, if limited, abilities where our Barbarian gets a continuous but not spectacular improvement. Should the Barbarian be jealous?

They should be roughly equal. If the DM follows the suggested encounter guidelines our Wizard is going to want to carefully manage his spell slots where the martials can just keep on being resilient and doing reliable damage. That doesn't make Fly and Lightning Bolt any less cool, but it does mean that they will be rationed and not dominate every encounter.

Unfortunately, many DMs allow long rests after each major encounter - that more than anything else tips things away from martials. Following the suggested encounter guidelines is one way a DM can responsibly bring balance to the table.

Multiple encounters per long rest - whether social, exploration or combat - is an unappreciated piece of the puzzle.