I agree with that.I don't see it as any different from playing cards or engaging in a board game with your significant other. Some couples handle it perfectly fine, and some over compensate in one direction or another (either helping each other or hurting each other).
Is it because they get preferential treatment if their partner is the DM? Because other than that, I'd think it was a good thing that someone new wants to try out the game, if they are genuinely interested.
That's why I think it's enough to only check Sage Advice when a question comes up. If you don't have a cleric/druid multiclass in your group you don't need to know the Disciple of Life/Goodberry ruling. At the point you have a cleric/druid that casts goodberry and you realize there are two possible interpretation on how that would work, you can still look up Sage Advice for rulings related to goodberry. Maybe you even have a player who remembers the ruling, then you won't even have to look it up.While I don't have any real deal breakers, I do have pet peeves.
I like RAW and not house rules. Part of this is my inner rules lawyer. But mostly it's that I know what to expect. It's the only real control I have in the game, especially with 5e. I love 5e because the rules are so simple that anyone can pretty much have system mastery after a little while. This is what I control vs. everything else the DM controls. To sit at the table ten sessions in and be told, "No, that's not the way that Force power works in MY universe" irks me. Thank you, DM, for invalidating my entire character.
As for Sage Advice, I have philosophical problems with it. Your job was to put together a coherent, clear rules source so that all I need when I sit down at the table is my PHB and some dice. I shouldn't need to memorize 3 million tweets and 30 pages of errata and FAQ in order to play. That just means you failed in the job you were paid to do. So Crawford and Mearls can give all the sage advice they want, but I'm not following them on twitter or checking the website each day for just what other rules they messed up. Adventure League doesn't even consider Sage Advice to be legal. They just had a thread over there crapping all over his recent Cutting Words ruling.
It's not that easy for a DM, because the way you adjudicate as DM directly influences the way all your players are playing. You are kind of like a teacher in that regard. If you laugh it off once, your players will not pay attention the next time either. If you want them to take care you have to make them learn it the hard way. If they almost died because they didn't take care of it, you can bet they'll be sure to strategically think about who holds the torch the next time.In general? Sure. But we're not talking about in general. We're talking about a specific scenario where (I feel) the DM was too strict. The DM could have laughed it off and warned about the importance of paying attention to your hands in the future. Instead he took a hard line with the rules then and there, spent some of his goodwill, and gained nothing in return.