The theme of this show seems to be 'the give and take of DMing: when to use the game systems vs. DM improv.' It's all subjective. It changes based on the DM and the players. I personally find that DM-ing is more of an art than a rules tightrope walk, but it's still nice to have system guidelines. Others may prefer to have very concrete rules for every niche circumstance. I thought the related discussions of 'does 5.5 distrust DMs' and 'is morale a good system' were very interesting. Thanks, guys! Also, love those popcorn buckets!
21:06 Shawn's analogy and example hit home - *Dungeon World* and other *PbtA* games rely very heavily on the DM being up to the task of improvising on the spot, which can be surprisingly difficult
@@SortKaffe it's not just the responsibility of the GM. I can only run PbtA world with a subset of my friends who play DnD. Why? Because players in PbtA must take on a lot of the responsibility of narration. In PbtA things break we players simply refer to moves, "I hack and slash" should never be uttered. Players must describe what the character is doing, great PbtA players describe things in a way that provides context for all outcomes of the upcoming die roll. When you have great PbtA players the GM improvisation is largely finishing the last 10% of a moment, not having to fully invent every second of action.
For me it's really easy to GM PBTA games. I GMed Dungeon Wolrd campaign a one shoot of World of dungeons, and a great Masks campaign. But I already was a Theater of the mind GM that used slight bullet points framework to improvise when the players went sideways when I was GMing 5e. And in the middle I Gmed a Fate Core Campaign, and a FAE minicampaign.
Thank you for answering my question! Here is another if you are so inclined. Question: Where do you stand on the Fudging Dice argument? Personally, I am a firm believer in letting the Dice tell a story. I use a laptop for my notes and monster stat blocks. But, I don't use a DM screen, and I make all my rolls out in the open. I believe that if you are making a dice roll where you need to potentially fudge the dice, you are setting yourself up for failure. If you are making a dice roll, you need to be able to live with both potentially good and potentially bad outcomes. There are many alternatives to fudging dice that I believe make for a better, more transparent game for everyone at the table, such as: - Capture the party instead of a TPK. - Have monsters run away after knocking a PC or 2 out of the fight (Gorrila Warfare) - Announce the Danger of an encounter before the party engages. - Provide a way for the party to retreat from an overwhelming challenge. I personally would rather have my PC die by the Dice than live due to DM fudging dice. But hey, what do I know? Would love to hear your thoughts on this controversial topic. Thanks.
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my question! My questions tend to ramble across multiple paragraphs, there's often a strong premise baked in and I like to exaggerate for emphasis or clarity. They also tend to boil down to "don't you agree with my premise?". So I really really appreciate you engaging with it despite all that, and I am glad if you found something in there that seemed worthy of a discussion! To be clear, one premise that will never be found in a question or ramblings of mine is that of malicious intent of the designers. As a game designer myself who has talked to lots of other game designers, I truly understand nobody sets out to destroy a game they're designing. Candy! Instead, my hypothesis was that there seemed to be what I think is an unwarranted fear driving parts of the design. Specifically, the fear of players not getting enough candy from stingy DMs and disliking the game because of that. The response to that fear to me looks like (exaggeration for clarity/humor/emphasis): Let's just hook up the players with an IV infusion of potent sugar, that way even if the DM never throws a single gold coin or magic item their way, their blood sugar will never drop below "high". The downside being that this makes it really hard for the DM to hand out candy without risking everyone suffering from diabetes. More Challenging for DMs? Handing out magic items, boons and free feats is very well suited for inexperienced DMs: it doesn't have to happen in real time and DM's can lean on all those little bits of design that are already in the game if they want. So that's a very different issue from the very real trade-off of introducing something like degrees of success into a game, which adds a ton of real-time cognitive load (as does, incidentally, having player characters drowning in special abilities, spells and feats). Spread your wings and fly! Teos example is a perfect example for my hypothesis. Isn't it much more fun for everyone when a DM can work with a player to find a way so they get to fly occasionally rather than everyone and their dog getting wings or free castings of the fly spell by level 3 anyway, and a serving of free Misty Steps on top because of their species/class/subclass/background, because some designer in Seattle said so (again, exaggeration for emphasis)? Teos example of what brings him joy is exactly what I meant, what think would bring the maximum joy for many DMs AND players. And yeah, in theory, there's always some room to still do that. But in practice it gets harder, more demanding. Let's see how many games are played beyond 12th level in this (non)-edition. My bet is it's going to be even fewer than in 5e14. Trying to fix out-of-game problems in-game: I would further hypothesize that if you're playing with a DM that's constantly telling you NO and is thwarting your attempts to get a sneak attack in all the time, that is the kind of problem that no amount of giving your player characters tons of awesome special powers will be able to fix. I understand as a game designer it may seem like the rules are the only tools you have to fix that problem because you can't sit everyone's table, but generally out-of-game problems are best addressed with out-of-game solutions: Here's where you may actually improve people's play experience a lot more with guidance, whether that's in the books or in videos, blog posts or some other format, without causing the collateral damage of the in-game fix. Bug or feature? 4th edition is also a great topic to bring up in this context, because while it was great at playing itself, not everyone agreed that was a feature instead of a bug, it wasn't exactly a popular edition. Mike Shea likes to bring up how he often felt as a DM that he could just have walked away from the table for long periods of time and it wouldn't have mattered. I don't know if that kind of design helps with the chronic shortage of DMs that purportedly bottlenecks the game's and the hobby's growth... Anyway, it's really cool that your podcasts has room for this kind of questions! Looking forward to the next episode!
Thanks so much, and thanks for the additional thoughts! We weren't sure how listener questions would go, but they have been some of the most fun we have on the show.
In regards to prescriptive vs. descriptive, and vague vs. enumerated design: One catch phrase we used in trainings was "Knowing when to should where you should, and could where you could, is half the battle.'
@16:00 Yeah, Crafting Magic Items and Bastions... Crazy! People are expecting both now that they are in the book. Now I have to say the shield spell for that 6 charges Uncommon Armor that a 3rd level character can easily EASILY MAKE FOR THEMSELVES...By 5th Level it's just going to get crazy when you include the Bastion. This is where the Designers added something in because they don't trust DMs. I think this is the issue, not the interactions Teos brought up. A clear Price list Table for Magic Items would have helped this or if we need to get easier system to enforce spell material components.
It's worth asking if the company that created the shield spell enchantment can also come up with good prices... that could apply to a broad enough set of possible campaign types. Personally, we question whether there should even be prices.
@@masteringdungeons I think it's less about not trusting DMs and more about getting player interest to the highest level possible, for more dollar bucks. I would say they are counting heavily on DMs (and 3rd party, homebrew, etc) to patch their mistakes enough to keep the game going, as they have kind of always done, under the pseudo-guise (because there is some truth to it) of well, just make it your own. It seems like lazy/pressed, greedy/shareholder-first, power creep "design" instead of taking the time and actually redesigning for the betterment of the game experience around the table. And maybe that's just the grindstone of capitalism, or this comment comes from the millstone around my neck from that same capitalism, a little from column A, a little from column B. In any case, great show and discussion, and comment, because questioning design capability on larger/broader scales got me thinking past just this comment, which turned into "capitalism, le sigh"
7:40 We did not need lower levels becoming more deadly, though. They were already disproportionally lethal. It was the higher levels that needed fixing.
some thoughts on the morale system, for boss type encounters, lair and monster features could easily fix the criticism that you could cause the boss to flee. isnt that the major benefit of having an exception based rules system? also, it seems weird to be critical of "use your best judgement". isnt the system there to limit the number of things you have to take into consideration for that judgement? like you dont need a monster manual to make monsters but it does help guide your judgements on what a good monster for the game has. that popcorn bucket is so amazing!! they did really good with the movie merch, i wish my theater had some when i went. also love the answers to the viewer questions, thoughtful as usual!
Regarding 2024 and DM trust, I do wonder how much of an uphill battle 2024 set itself up for adoption wise, because DMs have had 10 years to sharpen 5e's edges and hone the game rules to fit their preferences. 2024 isn't just trying retire the 2014 rules, but also those accumulated tweaks that DMs have been making that DMs are keen on keeping hold of. I wonder if it might have been an easier pill to swallow if 2024 had just been 6E instead. I know 3rd edition had 3.5e as a parallel, and I'm eager to see how much the transition over to 2024 parallels that transition, and how much it diverges.
Regarding morale - I think there is a first principles misalignment. Of course morale system may not make sense for you game, but many of us have very little interest in the type of DnD you seem to want. At my table there is a complete different understanding of the role of the DM and the social contract that the DM has with the players.
I agree. I feel like Teos's description of designing the orc encounter and being disappointed when they fled isn't the emergent story he references. As a player, I would find it interesting if the band of orcs fled immediately especially if I'm used to them staying to fight. As a DM, I would be interested in coming up with a reason for their retreat. Are they particularly cowardly? Are they mercenaries who aren't paid enough to deal with well-armed adventurers? Maybe they are superstitious and when the PCs got the jump on them, they thought it was the ghosts they keep hearing in the caves. In the event that these orcs were guarding the McGuffin, then maybe I would make a note to opt of the morale system for this group, they will fight to the death defending it. In this way, the morale system is my quick system to model this psychological phenomenon without it just becoming DM fiat. But as you said in your first line, this is a specific principle, which I've been favoring recently. I know it's a possibility to have a "perfectly" simulated world and that it results in a boring and uninspired session. That's the cost of verisimilitude in my opinion.
@blindfreak01 It boils down to expectations of the roles at table. In my DnD games the DM role once the game has started is that of a narrator and objective and dispassionate referee. Just like the players I have no screen, roll in front of players, and I'm there to witness what happens. Using systems like morale helps me maintain objectivity, in a similar way rolling in the open, wandering monsters, and loot tables, do. As an empathetic person I want my friends to thrive and succeed at all things, including DnD, BUT that isn't what we all want. My players want to know the game was "real" if they suspect the game was "rigged" in their favour they would be disappointed.
That's fair. It's why we try to be pretty open about our stylistic preferences and that it isn't some truth to how we feel about it (beyond being how some folks feel).
Mass combat in an RPG always seems to me like trying to cook with only a paint brush. Sure, some things it could do for you, but you're making it harder than it needs to be. It seems like it would be better for those moments to switch to a game system meant for mass combat, like what seemed to be intended with the Dragonlance board game.
My own protocol on draft rules was that anytime I read "use your best judgement" or "you can always override these" it was summary rejection. Do not distrubute further. At first I used to attempt a bit of positive criticism, but they wore me down fast.
It depends on the subject, and it varies across time. Generally, they can design what they want, but the broad goals sometimes have very strong corporate goals. We highly recommend the Gen Con channel videos where they interview design teams from each edition. It is fascinating how many high-level constraints some teams dealt with, while others had very few.
Let's pretend we are doing the influencer thing where we try to get people to interact with us by deliberately mispelling words? Yeah, that's it! (Thank you, will correct this)
Coming at this as a player, in regards to 2024 giving players expectations now that they didn't have before...can't the dm just say no? Before the game set the expectations of what you want in your game. If you don't want to run a bastion...just tell your players that. DMs are part of the game as well. If a part of it is going to ruin their fun, and leaving it out won't break the game, they can just tell their players that. I think the solution to this is have a DM talk to their actual players about goals and expectations...and not go on stress spirals about imagined players who are going to storm your house once they gain the appropriate level and demand a magical item or they will riot.
Absolutely. The game also has the decision of how many things to put in the "DM needs to talk to the players about this" column or the "and the book makes this clear to the players so the DM can focus on the game." It's a choice, with impacts either way.
Of course, you can always say no as a DM (and as a player). The thesis behind my question was that it's more fun for everyone, when a game provides a system in which the DM can say YES more often when it wasn't expected, rather than when the game already hands out everything and the kitchen sink and the DM isn't even part of a conversation where they could say YES. Or, even worse, try to advocate for a non-superheroic experience right out of the gate and would like to shyly say NO to a thing here or there. I would prefer games to put DMs in a position where they can be the good guys and the players enjoy pleasant surprises, rather than one when the DM is just there, or worse, has to say NO more often. Of course I agree with you that players (including the DM) should talk to each other about expectations, house rules etc., that's what a session 0 is for. It's just that as a game designer, you can make that conversation a little nicer for everyone, or a little trickier by setting baselines that don't go all the way up to 11.
The theme of this show seems to be 'the give and take of DMing: when to use the game systems vs. DM improv.' It's all subjective. It changes based on the DM and the players. I personally find that DM-ing is more of an art than a rules tightrope walk, but it's still nice to have system guidelines. Others may prefer to have very concrete rules for every niche circumstance.
I thought the related discussions of 'does 5.5 distrust DMs' and 'is morale a good system' were very interesting. Thanks, guys! Also, love those popcorn buckets!
Thanks! We really agree that it varies greatly. That "art" side of things really makes this hobby amazing.
How am I just finding this channel now? Great conversation!
Thanks! Welcome!
21:06 Shawn's analogy and example hit home - *Dungeon World* and other *PbtA* games rely very heavily on the DM being up to the task of improvising on the spot, which can be surprisingly difficult
@@SortKaffe it's not just the responsibility of the GM. I can only run PbtA world with a subset of my friends who play DnD. Why? Because players in PbtA must take on a lot of the responsibility of narration. In PbtA things break we players simply refer to moves, "I hack and slash" should never be uttered. Players must describe what the character is doing, great PbtA players describe things in a way that provides context for all outcomes of the upcoming die roll. When you have great PbtA players the GM improvisation is largely finishing the last 10% of a moment, not having to fully invent every second of action.
And it varies, right? For some DMs it is really easy, while for others it feels like a really big ask.
For me it's really easy to GM PBTA games. I GMed Dungeon Wolrd campaign a one shoot of World of dungeons, and a great Masks campaign. But I already was a Theater of the mind GM that used slight bullet points framework to improvise when the players went sideways when I was GMing 5e. And in the middle I Gmed a Fate Core Campaign, and a FAE minicampaign.
Thank you for answering my question!
Here is another if you are so inclined.
Question: Where do you stand on the Fudging Dice argument?
Personally, I am a firm believer in letting the Dice tell a story.
I use a laptop for my notes and monster stat blocks. But, I don't use a DM screen, and I make all my rolls out in the open.
I believe that if you are making a dice roll where you need to potentially fudge the dice, you are setting yourself up for failure. If you are making a dice roll, you need to be able to live with both potentially good and potentially bad outcomes.
There are many alternatives to fudging dice that I believe make for a better, more transparent game for everyone at the table, such as:
- Capture the party instead of a TPK.
- Have monsters run away after knocking a PC or 2 out of the fight (Gorrila Warfare)
- Announce the Danger of an encounter before the party engages.
- Provide a way for the party to retreat from an overwhelming challenge.
I personally would rather have my PC die by the Dice than live due to DM fudging dice.
But hey, what do I know?
Would love to hear your thoughts on this controversial topic. Thanks.
Thanks so much! Great question.
Thanks for the desert island answers! Shawn's response was exceedingly Shawn, in the best way.
Shawn is easily 90% Shawn, most of the time.
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my question!
My questions tend to ramble across multiple paragraphs, there's often a strong premise baked in and I like to exaggerate for emphasis or clarity. They also tend to boil down to "don't you agree with my premise?". So I really really appreciate you engaging with it despite all that, and I am glad if you found something in there that seemed worthy of a discussion!
To be clear, one premise that will never be found in a question or ramblings of mine is that of malicious intent of the designers. As a game designer myself who has talked to lots of other game designers, I truly understand nobody sets out to destroy a game they're designing.
Candy!
Instead, my hypothesis was that there seemed to be what I think is an unwarranted fear driving parts of the design. Specifically, the fear of players not getting enough candy from stingy DMs and disliking the game because of that. The response to that fear to me looks like (exaggeration for clarity/humor/emphasis): Let's just hook up the players with an IV infusion of potent sugar, that way even if the DM never throws a single gold coin or magic item their way, their blood sugar will never drop below "high". The downside being that this makes it really hard for the DM to hand out candy without risking everyone suffering from diabetes.
More Challenging for DMs?
Handing out magic items, boons and free feats is very well suited for inexperienced DMs: it doesn't have to happen in real time and DM's can lean on all those little bits of design that are already in the game if they want. So that's a very different issue from the very real trade-off of introducing something like degrees of success into a game, which adds a ton of real-time cognitive load (as does, incidentally, having player characters drowning in special abilities, spells and feats).
Spread your wings and fly!
Teos example is a perfect example for my hypothesis. Isn't it much more fun for everyone when a DM can work with a player to find a way so they get to fly occasionally rather than everyone and their dog getting wings or free castings of the fly spell by level 3 anyway, and a serving of free Misty Steps on top because of their species/class/subclass/background, because some designer in Seattle said so (again, exaggeration for emphasis)? Teos example of what brings him joy is exactly what I meant, what think would bring the maximum joy for many DMs AND players. And yeah, in theory, there's always some room to still do that. But in practice it gets harder, more demanding. Let's see how many games are played beyond 12th level in this (non)-edition. My bet is it's going to be even fewer than in 5e14.
Trying to fix out-of-game problems in-game:
I would further hypothesize that if you're playing with a DM that's constantly telling you NO and is thwarting your attempts to get a sneak attack in all the time, that is the kind of problem that no amount of giving your player characters tons of awesome special powers will be able to fix. I understand as a game designer it may seem like the rules are the only tools you have to fix that problem because you can't sit everyone's table, but generally out-of-game problems are best addressed with out-of-game solutions: Here's where you may actually improve people's play experience a lot more with guidance, whether that's in the books or in videos, blog posts or some other format, without causing the collateral damage of the in-game fix.
Bug or feature?
4th edition is also a great topic to bring up in this context, because while it was great at playing itself, not everyone agreed that was a feature instead of a bug, it wasn't exactly a popular edition. Mike Shea likes to bring up how he often felt as a DM that he could just have walked away from the table for long periods of time and it wouldn't have mattered. I don't know if that kind of design helps with the chronic shortage of DMs that purportedly bottlenecks the game's and the hobby's growth...
Anyway, it's really cool that your podcasts has room for this kind of questions! Looking forward to the next episode!
Thanks so much, and thanks for the additional thoughts! We weren't sure how listener questions would go, but they have been some of the most fun we have on the show.
In regards to prescriptive vs. descriptive, and vague vs. enumerated design: One catch phrase we used in trainings was "Knowing when to should where you should, and could where you could, is half the battle.'
We like that!
You are both very welcome! Glad it make it safely to the far north! Keep up the awesomnes.
You are the best!
@16:00 Yeah, Crafting Magic Items and Bastions... Crazy! People are expecting both now that they are in the book. Now I have to say the shield spell for that 6 charges Uncommon Armor that a 3rd level character can easily EASILY MAKE FOR THEMSELVES...By 5th Level it's just going to get crazy when you include the Bastion. This is where the Designers added something in because they don't trust DMs. I think this is the issue, not the interactions Teos brought up. A clear Price list Table for Magic Items would have helped this or if we need to get easier system to enforce spell material components.
It's worth asking if the company that created the shield spell enchantment can also come up with good prices... that could apply to a broad enough set of possible campaign types. Personally, we question whether there should even be prices.
@@masteringdungeons I think it's less about not trusting DMs and more about getting player interest to the highest level possible, for more dollar bucks. I would say they are counting heavily on DMs (and 3rd party, homebrew, etc) to patch their mistakes enough to keep the game going, as they have kind of always done, under the pseudo-guise (because there is some truth to it) of well, just make it your own. It seems like lazy/pressed, greedy/shareholder-first, power creep "design" instead of taking the time and actually redesigning for the betterment of the game experience around the table. And maybe that's just the grindstone of capitalism, or this comment comes from the millstone around my neck from that same capitalism, a little from column A, a little from column B. In any case, great show and discussion, and comment, because questioning design capability on larger/broader scales got me thinking past just this comment, which turned into "capitalism, le sigh"
Thanks.
You're very welcome!
7:40 We did not need lower levels becoming more deadly, though. They were already disproportionally lethal. It was the higher levels that needed fixing.
Absolutely.
Great show as always 👍🏻
Thank you!
some thoughts on the morale system, for boss type encounters, lair and monster features could easily fix the criticism that you could cause the boss to flee. isnt that the major benefit of having an exception based rules system? also, it seems weird to be critical of "use your best judgement". isnt the system there to limit the number of things you have to take into consideration for that judgement? like you dont need a monster manual to make monsters but it does help guide your judgements on what a good monster for the game has.
that popcorn bucket is so amazing!! they did really good with the movie merch, i wish my theater had some when i went. also love the answers to the viewer questions, thoughtful as usual!
Mass combat and morale are both super tough design challenges, for sure. And yes, that popcorn bucket is amazing!
Regarding 2024 and DM trust, I do wonder how much of an uphill battle 2024 set itself up for adoption wise, because DMs have had 10 years to sharpen 5e's edges and hone the game rules to fit their preferences. 2024 isn't just trying retire the 2014 rules, but also those accumulated tweaks that DMs have been making that DMs are keen on keeping hold of.
I wonder if it might have been an easier pill to swallow if 2024 had just been 6E instead. I know 3rd edition had 3.5e as a parallel, and I'm eager to see how much the transition over to 2024 parallels that transition, and how much it diverges.
That's a really great point!
Regarding morale - I think there is a first principles misalignment. Of course morale system may not make sense for you game, but many of us have very little interest in the type of DnD you seem to want. At my table there is a complete different understanding of the role of the DM and the social contract that the DM has with the players.
I agree. I feel like Teos's description of designing the orc encounter and being disappointed when they fled isn't the emergent story he references. As a player, I would find it interesting if the band of orcs fled immediately especially if I'm used to them staying to fight. As a DM, I would be interested in coming up with a reason for their retreat. Are they particularly cowardly? Are they mercenaries who aren't paid enough to deal with well-armed adventurers? Maybe they are superstitious and when the PCs got the jump on them, they thought it was the ghosts they keep hearing in the caves.
In the event that these orcs were guarding the McGuffin, then maybe I would make a note to opt of the morale system for this group, they will fight to the death defending it. In this way, the morale system is my quick system to model this psychological phenomenon without it just becoming DM fiat. But as you said in your first line, this is a specific principle, which I've been favoring recently. I know it's a possibility to have a "perfectly" simulated world and that it results in a boring and uninspired session. That's the cost of verisimilitude in my opinion.
@blindfreak01 It boils down to expectations of the roles at table. In my DnD games the DM role once the game has started is that of a narrator and objective and dispassionate referee. Just like the players I have no screen, roll in front of players, and I'm there to witness what happens. Using systems like morale helps me maintain objectivity, in a similar way rolling in the open, wandering monsters, and loot tables, do. As an empathetic person I want my friends to thrive and succeed at all things, including DnD, BUT that isn't what we all want. My players want to know the game was "real" if they suspect the game was "rigged" in their favour they would be disappointed.
That's fair. It's why we try to be pretty open about our stylistic preferences and that it isn't some truth to how we feel about it (beyond being how some folks feel).
Pretty sure Shawn meant "prescribed" {put forth; given to you} every time he said "proscribed" {forbidden}.
Everything Shawn prescribes should be proscribed! (Thank you)
Wasn't Paraguay the country where the 5th Golden Ticket was found?
Are you saying my wife is on a secret mission now? - Teos
@ A mission so secret, we’re talking about it on the Internet. I hope your Golden Ticket is found!
Mass combat in an RPG always seems to me like trying to cook with only a paint brush. Sure, some things it could do for you, but you're making it harder than it needs to be. It seems like it would be better for those moments to switch to a game system meant for mass combat, like what seemed to be intended with the Dragonlance board game.
Very true! It's almost like an unbeatable challenge an RPG company could give as a writing test.
My own protocol on draft rules was that anytime I read "use your best judgement" or "you can always override these" it was summary rejection. Do not distrubute further. At first I used to attempt a bit of positive criticism, but they wore me down fast.
We don't mind that sometimes, but in general we want a bit more guidance, to at least discuss how/why and perhaps an example.
How much do you think the designers at wizards are restrained by direction from the corporation?
It depends on the subject, and it varies across time. Generally, they can design what they want, but the broad goals sometimes have very strong corporate goals. We highly recommend the Gen Con channel videos where they interview design teams from each edition. It is fascinating how many high-level constraints some teams dealt with, while others had very few.
Oops, "Critical Role" is spelled wrong in the headline.
Let's pretend we are doing the influencer thing where we try to get people to interact with us by deliberately mispelling words? Yeah, that's it! (Thank you, will correct this)
Coming at this as a player, in regards to 2024 giving players expectations now that they didn't have before...can't the dm just say no? Before the game set the expectations of what you want in your game. If you don't want to run a bastion...just tell your players that. DMs are part of the game as well. If a part of it is going to ruin their fun, and leaving it out won't break the game, they can just tell their players that.
I think the solution to this is have a DM talk to their actual players about goals and expectations...and not go on stress spirals about imagined players who are going to storm your house once they gain the appropriate level and demand a magical item or they will riot.
Absolutely. The game also has the decision of how many things to put in the "DM needs to talk to the players about this" column or the "and the book makes this clear to the players so the DM can focus on the game." It's a choice, with impacts either way.
Of course, you can always say no as a DM (and as a player).
The thesis behind my question was that it's more fun for everyone, when a game provides a system in which the DM can say YES more often when it wasn't expected, rather than when the game already hands out everything and the kitchen sink and the DM isn't even part of a conversation where they could say YES. Or, even worse, try to advocate for a non-superheroic experience right out of the gate and would like to shyly say NO to a thing here or there.
I would prefer games to put DMs in a position where they can be the good guys and the players enjoy pleasant surprises, rather than one when the DM is just there, or worse, has to say NO more often. Of course I agree with you that players (including the DM) should talk to each other about expectations, house rules etc., that's what a session 0 is for. It's just that as a game designer, you can make that conversation a little nicer for everyone, or a little trickier by setting baselines that don't go all the way up to 11.