Quote Originally Posted by Zeful View Post
Here's why: Your point that I took umbrage with (this one) essentially made the distinction between good DMs and bad DMs so harsh and unforgiving that anyone trying DMing out for the first time is automatically a bad DM and the value judgement placed in that comment made it out that there was no point in playing with a bad DM, and thus no point in playing with a "new DM" either (hence the comment about a catch-22).
First, I would contend that many new DM's are bad DM's, very few people are good at any task when they first start out. As the great as wise Jake the Dog once said "Sucking at something is just the first step to being kind of good at something".

You are also extracting far more meaning from my statement that was said or implied. You are saying that I said all new DM's are bad DM's(which you said not me), and then you said that D&D is not worth playing with a bad DM(ignoring that bad is not a binary quality, even so it's a false statement).

Essentially, your comment came across as "If you aren't already a incredible DM stop trying," which is not only reprehensible on the face of it. It's also supported by a social contract that should, on the face of it, be really easy to uphold, but has been so perverted by the mindset your comment espoused that rather than being a simple axiom is instead of a laundry list of things that are "sacrosanct" for literally no good reason.
Now you're putting words in my mouth. I said that bad DM's tend to be the ones to take away equipment, and taking away equipment tends to lead to player resentment, which is all I said, period. You're trying to make me look like some kind of D&D snob, which is completely untrue, I simply believe that taking away equipment from players, especially for game balance reasons, is a really bad idea and shouldn't be done, and I expressed my educated opinion here. You're taking take sentences with no hidden meaning expressed or implied and trying to make me look bad and say I hate new DMs, which isn't even a topic I touched upon, and I don't appreciate it.

Taking away a player's weapon is not a sign of bad DMing just like introducing something at the eleventh hour in a book isn't automatically a sign of bad writing, it's just something very easy to screw up. It has become a sign of "bad DMing" partly out of DMs screwing it up, but mostly out of the pervasiveness of high-end optimization requiring things that outright break game balance so severely that the only options are to invalidate it, or take it away from the players, and the general entitlement of the players that goes along with that.
Key note, we were talking about taking something away from a player for balance reasons(try to remember the context in which my post was made), and I will stand by that taking equipment away from a player to balance the game is almost always a bad idea. There are plenty of good plot reasons to steal equipment(though I think that doing so for anything more than a session or two is usually a bad idea), but that is a different issue entirely, which deserves a thread of it's own, and doesn't have much place in a discussion about D&D 5th, specifically the topic of how players gain resources and power.

And besides, if a DM screws up game balance, they made a mistake, and is it a bad thing for them to admit to their mistake? Most good players will understand, if I have a player who doesn't understand that sometimes I make mistakes, and is willing to make adjustments, I don't want to play with that player(and I've had that exact problem before, I allowed some spells and feats I shouldn't have, he made a big fuss when I mentioned he was overpowering the party, and now he's not in our group, and we're having fun without him).