Or you just play with bad DMs.
Not really, no. I just prefer playing with good DMs in systems that are actually interesting to use in and of themselves, regardless of what further awesome the DM brings to the table. There is a reason tic-tac-toe is not used as a core gameplay mechanic--it is boringly simple, enough so that even a small child can quickly figure out smart players can always ensure a tie. "DM says" is, in the strictest sense, the simplest possible game "system" one can imagine. In systems where the DM's word is law, all hail the mighty and powerful Viking Hat, that's
literally all there is to it. And even an above-average DM is not, in general, going to be an amazing on-the-fly game designer.
Find a good DM that can run a negotiation scene with interesting NPCs
Essentially every DM I've ever had, check.
and who has learned how to establish DCs off the top of their head
Aaaaand here we have the problem. I don't believe even 3/4 of DMs have this skill. I believe
most of the people who think they have it are nowhere near as skilled as they think they are. The design of 5e does not, in any way, help with this, since the vast majority of its advice boils down to "you figure it out" and the rules themselves have marked a return of the opacity and (intentional or accidental) misdirection prevalent in past editions (especially 2e and earlier, but 3e ain't innocent on that front either).
for what (general) you as a player has said to them and it won't matter if (general) you find that the 'Influence Action' of a DC 15 check to be a boring or uncompelling rule.
You are entirely missing the point. It is not the DC of the action. It is that the literal entirety of gameplay--every portion in which strategy, forethought, or acumen could manifest--lies in "DM says." The DM says something, and you try to respond. There is, literally,
nothing else of gaming in it. You do not have resources--you have what the DM says you have. You do not have tools--you have what the DM says you have. You do not have preparation--you have what the DM says you have. Even the DMs I've had that I would call absolutely excellent, ones I would almost unreservedly accept an invitation from to a new game, often forget various benefits--tools, resources, preparations, established background, etc., etc. Even the very best DMs is almost never a brilliant tactician who can see enough of the possibility space to actually prepare meaningful, qualitative differences between branching paths.
I know it seems like there are a number of posters here on the boards who apparently are stuck with bad DMs and thus hope against hope the rules of the game are written in such a way that they will just plaster over the crappy job their DMs will do by having essentially pre-programmed results that the DM isn't allowed to screw up if they "follow RAW"... but that takes all RPGs further away from their point of existence.
Not at all. It brings them
closer to one of their purposes "of existence" as you put it: being a GAME. You know, with
gameplay. Something where you have to use both quantitative (which path produces mathematically superior results?) and qualitative (which path is more desirable?) reasoning in order to choose the best course of action, and where you can genuinely get
better at choosing the best course of action through practice and learning. You cannot get better at "DM says." That's a big part of why I prefer, y'know, actually having
systems, rather than literally nothing more nor less than "persuade the DM to say you're right."
An RPG that hands out results purely by written rule fiat and no creativity on the part of the DM is essentially playing a CRPG.
And your conflation between this--which is an obvious strawman!--and "there are much, much more interesting gameplay structures than 'DM says'" is precisely why this pernicious game design trend will continue. You act as though rules design is a binary, where the only options are "perfectly-programmed robot
Which is fine if that's what you want... but you'll need to go further afield to find a game that is that, because that's certainly not what Dungeons & Dragons is.
It's not, and you know it's not, and it's frankly disingenuous for you to phrase it this way because of it.
D&D requires your DM to be creative, interesting, interactive, fair, inspiring, and inventive.
Well, creative and inventive are really just synonyms for one another in this cotext and "interesting" is a non-descriptor here (since it's no more specific than "good"), so we can really reduce that to "creative, interactive, fair, inspiring." I find that the vast majority of people are not particularly "inspiring." I have no doubt most of them are great people, but they don't induce a desire in others to rise higher. So that's already one out. Interactive is kind of a given, I'd thought, but now that you mention it, that really is one of the greatest problems of the "Viking Hat" approach; it isn't and proudly
refuses to be interactive. It is declarative; you will accept that declaration or you will
leave and never return.
And that leaves...fair. Which is precisely my problem with a lot of things. I don't think most DMs are fair. And that doesn't mean I think they cheat or manipulate or deceive. I don't! I think most DMs don't like being any of those things, and would be shocked (and possibly regretful) if they found out their players thought they were engaging in anything like that. No, my problem is
I don't think humans are fair in general. I think we're really, really, really awful at being "fair"--because we're absolutely $#!% at statistics, doubly so when it's purely abstract
and on-the-fly. It is very difficult for humans to take raw probability numbers and turn them into well-constructed spreads of options. It is
extremely easy for humans to think that a particular event is (say) very unlikely, when actually it's nearly guaranteed, or vice-versa.
That is where I think humans-in-general are "unfair"--they're just not equipped with a sufficient intuitive understanding of statistics to produce mathematically-well-structured challenges that truly must be answered qualitatively (what do you
want more?) rather than quantitatively (which is mathematically higher/lower/better?)
So, from my perspective, you're asking for a person who is both highly improbable (inspirational)
and nearly impossible (truly able to produce statistically fair, strategic gameplay). Yes, I think it would be a serious fault of D&D's design to expect widespread leadership from people who are somewhere between highly improbable or effectively impossible. That would seem to be crippling, in fact.
If you don't have one that can be all that, I feel for you... but it doesn't mean the game needs to be dumbed down so that you no longer need them.
I don't believe
anyone can be all that. I certainly don't believe anyone can be all of that
all the time. And mocking "oh, so you want more gameplay than 'DM says', that means you want D&D
dumbed down huh?!" is not only the kind of crappy mudslinging I'd expect from a bad YouTube comment section, I'm genuinely shocked to see you make such a crappy, bad-faith argument.
