Well, no ... maybe you do. Many, many, many of us do not.
For some reason, you feel that of three alternatives -- (a) stop playing the way you play, (b) find a game that suits you better, or (c) force the rest of us to accept (or just acknowledge some need for) a change we don't need -- you guys go for (c).
Sure, it isn't a universal experience. But many players clearly do find this to be a potential issue with a game they otherwise enjoy. Here's the thing - I'm not saying that (c) is that you need to accept my problem with the game. I'm saying that (c) is that I would prefer to see the game change to a version that I consider an improvement.
It is perfectly fine for you to disagree with that, and prefer a different version. But what you instead seem to be saying is that my prefered style of play is wrong, or that it only becomes a problem because the people who enjoy that style of play are douchebags. Which, the potential offense of such a view
aside, I don't find especially conductive to reasonable conversation.
Again, this isn't a coincidence.
Seriously, what do you mean by this? Do you really
genuinely feel that the only people who have voiced this complaint are a certain subset of players who embrace powergaming, or play only to 'win'?
Or, if you are implying something else, what is it?
No, the players have as much, if not more resposibility than the designers. Why are we relying on the designers to make rules against face-dribbling when players should have perfect sense not to do so themselves?
Because, again, it isn't always
obvious what options are unbalanced (or, at least,
potentially unbalanced). It isn't always clear what spells will enhance the game experience (by helping the entire party accomplish their goals, or by revealing interesting things about the game) vs which ones will trivialize the other PC's efforts, or bypass the entertainment of intrigue/investigative scenarios with a single spell.
I mean, I honestly will admit I know next to nothing about face-dribbling. I have no idea how often such a thing occurs to players or would be considered a viable tactic in a game.
But the choices we are discussing are presented in the core rules, by the designers, as completely valid choices.
And some players prefer that, because they are ok with that style or play or have found ways around it. That's the tricky question here - is there a way to mitigate the potential frustrations they cause for some players without removing their capabilities entirely?
Either way, though, I still don't buy that the burden should be on the players. They should be able to trust in the quality of the rules, that what they are playing with will lead to a good experience when handled as presented. Now, that isn't an absolutely guarantee, of course, and every group will have its own dynamics and elements... but this clearly isn't an isolated case, or one that can be casually solved by common-sense alone.
Back on the knock example; this isn't only the tool of the wizard. The rogue can pick the lock, the fighter can bash the door in. The problem comes in the fact it takes the fighter or the rogue a minute or two to do so. The wizard does it in a matter of seconds, and without a check of some sort. Supposably, this was balanced by the fact the wizard would only be doing this maybe once an adventure, whereas the fighter or rogue could employ their door-opening skill at any time.
Somewhere along the way though, people started arguing the wizard was broken because he could things like this any and every time it came up, often forgetting that D&D isn't played as one encounter per day and the wizard whose blown his all his spell allotment on these kind of things is going to get eaten by the grue on the other side of the door.
Which is why other elements come into play - the ability to easily have a scroll for every occasion.
Or, honestly, the fact that even without one, the Wizard starts to have a good number of spells by higher levels. Even if he spends half his spells on solving various obstacles that the rest of the party would have liked to interact with, he still can then potentially solve the combats on the other end of the door with one or two carefully chosen spells as well.
Again, this isn't a universal scenario, and there are ways to mitigate it by bother players and DMs. I still feel, for me, that I would like this sort of thing addressed in the rules and mechanics themselves.
