The meaning of "fair" in DnD

Quote from James_Bard >>

Bad DMs fetishize killing characters, forcing TPKs, and stifling player agency. Limiting choices, classes, multiclassing, races, magic items, and overall creativity goes against the very spirit of the game. The true ethos of Dungeons & Dragons is simple: a group of like-minded friends sitting around a table having a fun adventure. The DM is the ringmaster, but they are no more or less important than anyone else. Everyone at the table is a player.

A good DM tunes combat to make the party sweat and clench up a little, but in all likelihood, the players should win. If an encounter ends up overtuned, a good DM knows how to adjust behind the screen—having a creature conveniently miss, or moving a monster on to the next target when a character goes down. This nonsense about constantly making players reroll characters is silly.

I am equally dismayed by the "Critical Role" style of heavy roleplay where the actual rules no longer matter. A great DM follows Rules As Written (RAW) about 90% of the time, leaving just enough room for player creativity and well-balanced homebrew that enhances the fun.

To be clear, by "90% RAW," I mean strictly adhering to combat and spell mechanics—not stupidly counting arrows.

If your DM isn't striking this balance and fostering this kind of environment, find a new DM.

 Pantagruel touched on this already, but it bears repeating: A good DM is a DM who makes sure everyone at the table (including themselves!) has fun. And it's important to recognize that there's a yawning gulf of difference between "I don't like this thing" and "this thing is bad and no one should like it." Now I'm not going to yum your yuck and tell you you're wrong for not liking a grindfest game, but by the same token don't assume no one likes that, at least once in a while. As long as everybody's on board with the stakes and the expectations in session zero, a game where each player comes with several backup character sheets can be a fun change of pace.

Quote from Wysperra >>

Quote from SunIsGettingRealLow96589 >>

The dm who counted ammunition, didnt mention that until my ranger was three sessions into a dungeon and six session into me joining the campaign.

 

Keeping track of your resources is a player responsibility. While a GM can track and remind you about your arrows, your rations, your spells slots, your hps, It's your responsibility to keep an eye on it as a player. Assuming that your 20 arrows suddenly became unlimited is a mistake on your part. 

 That all depends on clear communications and setting expectations during session zero. Not having a session zero to set expectations and boundaries is a big red flag.

@Apple Paladin & Pantagruel: Fair point.

We probably just game in different circles. My players tend to get attached to their characters and want to watch them grow from levels 1 to 20 (though I know playing a full 1-20 campaign is an oddity in and of itself for most groups). That being said, I have never had a group express any desire for a meatgrinder campaign where they needed three character sheets on standby because I planned to chain-kill them. I'm not saying it couldn't be fun if that's what both the DM and the group wanted, but I haven't experienced it personally. Additionally, my previous comment was specifically aimed at DMs who run those kinds of games when it is NOT what the group expected or intended

I wouldn't want to play an ongoing meatgrinder campaign, but I think they can be fun as one-shots or mini-campaigns. But again, it's all about clear communications and setting expectations in session zero.

It all ties back to the root question of "what is fair?" And it turns out things like "fair" and "good" depend heavily on group consensus. If everybody at the table wants a meatgrinder campaign, then they're all probably going to think it's perfectly fair when one of their characters falls into a deep pit trap perfectly sized for the gelatinous cube at the bottom obscured by magical darkness so the character gets dissolved and there's nothing anyone can do about it. It's not my ideal outcome, but if everybody at the table has expectations set and is cool with it, then by all means. But I will say that if I'm looking at joining a group, we during the pre-campaign session zero the DM says it's going to be a grimdark low fantasy setting with high risk of PC death and strict resource counting to the point of the wizard having to track how much insence they're buying to summon their familiar? I'm out. I generally want something more lighthearted and adventurous. But I hope everybody at the table has fun storming the caste while I find another group to play with.

Also, session zero isn't only for before a campaign starts. It's good to have a session zero every now and again for the DM and players to check in (and for the players to check in with each other) to make sure everyone's good with how things are going and iron out any issues that may have come up (like the "girlfriend getting more attention than the rest of the table" or "suddenly we're counting ammunition" issues mentioned upstream).

Quote from Wysperra >>

Quote from SunIsGettingRealLow96589 >>

The dm who counted ammunition, didnt mention that until my ranger was three sessions into a dungeon and six session into me joining the campaign.

 

Keeping track of your resources is a player responsibility. While a GM can track and remind you about your arrows, your rations, your spells slots, your hps, It's your responsibility to keep an eye on it as a player. Assuming that your 20 arrows suddenly became unlimited is a mistake on your part. 

 
I think this particular example falls under 'most players don't actually *know* the rules of 5e D&D'. 

At it's core, ammunition is to be tracked as is weight, currency, and a whole load of other small things. Now granted it's not for everyone, but if a DM advertises a campaign players ought to assume that tracking resources will be a thing unless the DM specifies otherwise. At least this holds true of 5e.

This holds true for other things too. A major difference between 5e and 5.5e is the optionality of feats. Within my circle of GMs and players it's about 50/50 GMs who run feats and multiclassing, and those who do not. However, these are not stock 5e rules. They are optional and players are *supposed* to get DM agreement to use these rules. That is of course according to the text of the 5e PHB. It personally grinds my gears when I see brainless influencers hype up a supposedly amazing build and forget to say 'by the way this build uses optional rules, check with your DM before using it'. Of course for 5.5e that optionality is removed and feats are a core part of the game.

Having played other systems I do wish the D&D player and DM base would borrow more from things we see in Pathfinder adventures. Often you'll get adventures where player options do get limited as a result of the specific setting. You might for example have an adventure where all the player characters are a specific species or class because the setting and the adventure are build around that concept. This incidentally isn't poor adventure design, but it often in D&D circles gets called out as such because the idea of limiting player choice gets seen as antithetical to the game by some. This is what I dislike a lot about 5.5e. A lot of what it introduced as standard was likely already enacted at tables anyway, but I think having a load of optional rules that can be toggled on and off makes for a more interesting variety of games and tables. It allows better tailoring of the game to the players and adventures. 

When it comes to turning on and off rules, there's nothing inherently fair or unfair about that as long as players and GM understand the rules under which that specific campaign is operating. That's on a player to request though if they don't want to be tracking ammunition.

@martintheactor 

I don’t disagree with your points—it really comes down to personal taste and table culture. Many DMs view the game as their domain rather than a collaborative effort, choosing to enforce certain rules arbitrarily. (In my opinion, this is often an attempt to keep things simple by purposefully keeping players underpowered, but I digress.) If a table agrees that counting arrows is fun, then who am I to argue? If they’re having a good time, that’s all that matters.

The friction usually occurs because many tables—including the ones I play at or run—know the rules but consciously choose not to track incidentals. We prefer to allow feats, permit mild homebrew, include all official classes and races, and support multiclassing. Furthermore, we avoid "chain-killing" low-level characters, which I personally think is bad form—unless, of course, the adventure is specifically set up that way during Session Zero.

While I agree with you philosophically, I’ve definitely sat at tables where it was "my way or the highway." In those instances, I’ve always chosen to politely drop the game. At the end of the day, I think we all just have our own perspectives on what makes a session enjoyable.