system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: "Rules as Written" when it comes to D&D and other tabletop games doesn't mean much, and DM's in fact *should* go through the rules and change anything they don't like.

So players in tabletop games like D&D like to talk about the rules, ways to break the game, etc, and often they'll use the phrase RAW or "Rules as written", but I think it's kind of pointless to argue this. D&D has always emphasized that DMs should change any and all rules that they want to.

I've been watching some funny youtube videos where people talk about "overpowered" spells, ways to break the game, best "combos", etc. And while they're funny, I'm also taking notes on what to change in my own game in order to prevent this kind of powergaming.

This brings me to another point that I wanted to include in the title (but it was already clunky) - even D&D 5e, arguably the most "streamlined" and "munchkin-proof" edition yet, is still written by mere mortals and has its share of balance problems. I think this is mostly due to the fact that the creators can't imagine every scenario, and sometimes they just make little mistakes, like allowing players to summon creatures that can polymorph them into killing machines for a long period of time.

In fact, I think the videos on youtube that show these kinds of balance issues should be used to construct a sort of "community patch" which could list out these issues and ways to correct them.

Maybe what I'm saying doesn't seem very controversial, but I know a lot of players can be "rules lawyers", so maybe it is. But I think each roleplaying system isn't perfect and needs a significant amount of tweaking from creative players and DM's to be brought to its fullest potential, there's no need to wait for new editions.

edit: I'm not talking about secretly changing the rules without telling your players, I would discuss the changes with them beforehand.
gpt
RAW is important because it is consistent. It is the base upon which any set of house rules is built. If there is going to be any discussion of how the game should play or be played, it will necessarily be in the context of what in the RAW does or does not work for a given group/DM.

A community patch also seems like a strange way to approach what you see as problems with the system. RAW is the base, and groups can and should modify them to suit their needs, but the needs and desires of each group are too varied for there to be some magical set of house rules that will improve the game for everyone.

Some groups want games that are more powerful. They let people roll stats in ridiculous ways, give them bonus feats and skills in character creation, and implement powerful variants like spell points, or allow incredibly powerful homebrew classes and subclasses.

Some groups want to emphasize exploration or some non-combat pillar and outright ban several spells and background options that can trivialize this like outlander and goodberry.

Some groups want to trim back the power of the optimized damage per round builds, and therefore ban or change the feats these builds make strong use of.

There can't be a real community patch to the game when there is no "community way" to play the game. Every groups modifications should be specific and to suit their needs and playstyle. To understand what those changes might be, it is important to discuss and understand RAW, so you can make informed decisions about what to change and why.