D&D 5E Was I in the wrong?

[ExploderWizard]

They're already getting less out of the game by not paying attention, simply because they're not paying attention. (Much like I'm devaluing my movie ticket if I look at my phone the entire time the movie is playing.) It doesn't necessarily follow that their outcomes should be worse if they aren't paying attention. It depends more on if it's a priority to test player aptitude at paying attention to environmental details as a function of play. I, personally, find those details to be a distraction for the sort of tabletop play I'm looking for, but that's ultimately a personal preference.

The game is for the player, not the character. As a player, if the effort I'm putting forth to engage with the game doesn't have an impact on play then the game isn't worth playing. The best way to keep everyone engaged is to make sure that it matters.

 

[Maxperson]

stop contradicting yourself. You told me here that to avoid selling the items they needed to declare what they were not selling. You are now acting as if you never said that and even claiming no one is saying to describe what you aren't selling (see your post above). but I guess I should thank you because that leaves you with one way for the party to avoid selling the items. They could have bundled them differently. That's the only way you can come up with that they could have avoided selling the items. Bundle them differently? Maybe it's just me but I don't know what bundling has to do with selling.

There is no contradiction. When a PC goes to sell something, I don't expect him to say, "I am selling the armor, but not the gauntlets, ring, my pants, the gold in my pocket, my boots, my sword, my dagger, my shield, the gem in my boot..." I don't expect them to tell me what they don't sell. I do expect something along the lines of, "I take the gauntlets and ring out of the bundle and take the armor to the armor smith." That isn't declaring what they don't sell.
That's roleplaying.

 

[Shasarak]

1. In other words, you want to encourage a playstyle that involves constant debate and bickering about every detail.
Me: "I attack the orc."
You: "When you go to kick him, he chops off your foot!"
Me: "I am carrying a sword, and..."
You: "Gotcha! You didn't specify how you attacked! You're footless!"

That would have been a much better example then the original one, especially if one of the PCs had shouted the foot back on afterwards.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I do expect something along the lines of, "I take the gauntlets and ring out of the bundle and take the armor to the armor smith." That isn't declaring what they don't sell.

Since you are implying that a statement of "I take the armor to the armor smith" is insufficient declaration to sell the armor, but not also what else is in the bundle, you actually are asking for a declaration of what they don't sell - as that is the purpose of the statement "I take the gauntlets and ring out of the bundle."

That's roleplaying.

So is saying "I sell the armor." Even if the person saying it expects it to be functionally identical to saying "I sell the armor, but keep the gauntlets and ring."

 

[pemerton]

I'm not necessarily advocating punishment, but a lone player that isn't engaged is likely diminishing the game for other players and the DM. It's a social, shared experience that starts to crumble when you have very disruptive pieces.

Oh, definitely. It's not a question that being distracted is bad. It is. It makes the whole environment less fun. There's two interesting questions for me in this discussion.

1) To what degree should paying attention to details of environment and inventory be a focus of play?

I think players paying attention helps the play experience.

I think the way to get players to pay attention is to give them interesting stuff to attend to. I'm with TwoSix, though, in not finding inventory management to be among that interesting stuff. It's already a bit tedious in any game that features it - as a GM, I'm not interested in using techniques that make it a bigger focus of play!

In the scenario at issue in this thread: the players' PCs had killed the BBEG. They had got the loot. Some of the players had cared enough about the kidnapped children to send their PCs off to check on them, rather than focusing on looting. When one of the looted items had a ghost and triggered an encounter, the players seemed to care enough about this to focus on it rather than the looting of the gauntlet and ring, which was narrated more-or-less as an afterthought.

If I had players who were interested in rescuing kidnapped children and resolving the hauntings of swords, I would try and build more of that into my game rather than trying to force them to care about looting and inventory in a way that - per the OP - they don't seem innately inclined to.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I think players paying attention helps the play experience.

I think the way to get players to pay attention is to give them interesting stuff to attend to. I'm with TwoSix, though, in not finding inventory management to be among that interesting stuff. It's already a bit tedious in any game that features it - as a GM, I'm not interested in using techniques that make it a bigger focus of play!

To me, inventory management is tracking things like ammo, torches, rations, etc. Two unidentified items of magic ought to be interesting enough to be worth some attention and not lumped into the mundane inventory category. If that does happen then perhaps magic items are becoming a little too common.

 

[Maxperson]

Since you are implying that a statement of "I take the armor to the armor smith" is insufficient declaration to sell the armor, but not also what else is in the bundle, you actually are asking for a declaration of what they don't sell - as that is the purpose of the statement "I take the gauntlets and ring out of the bundle."

No it isn't. A declaration is an active action and what I have described is roleplaying, not an active declaration of what they don't want to sell.

So is saying "I sell the armor." Even if the person saying it expects it to be functionally identical to saying "I sell the armor, but keep the gauntlets and ring."

You do know that mismatched sets of armor are a thing and that gauntlets are a part of "the armor." by default, and since the ring is stuck to the gauntlets....

 

[FrogReaver]

4. What should the ranger have done differently to avoid selling those magical items in the sell situation and the situation leading up to selling the items?

2. explicitly tell the blacksmith that the gauntlets and ring are not part of the set when asked if he is selling the whole thing.

...Oh, and nobody is asking them to describe what they do not do.

See the contradiction now?

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

No it isn't. A declaration is an active action and what I have described is roleplaying, not an active declaration of what they don't want to sell.

How is ""I take the gauntlets and ring out of the bundle" not an active action? How is removing these items from the bundle prior to selling what remains in the bundle different from saying "I don't want to sell these items."?

You do know that mismatched sets of armor are a thing and that gauntlets are a part of "the armor." by default...

Yes, I do. I also understand that in this specific situation of the mismatched gauntlets being magical, a player might say "the armor" and mean "all the bits of armor that aren't a separate magical item" even though the same phrase could be used to mean the entire mismatched set.

 

[Maxperson]

See the contradiction now?

Nope! I don't expect them to list off every possession they own in some declaration of what they aren't selling. Answering a question posed is not making such a declaration. It's answering a question.