D&D 5E Was I in the wrong?

[Lejaun]

Being on the phone during play is IN game activity. Concentrating on a device instead of what is happening at the table is a CHOICE. If that choice leads to making idiotic mistakes then start making better choices rather than blaming someone else for your own lack of focus.

No, it's not. Me saying my character is attacking a goblin is in game activity. Me asking the bar maid if she has heard about the strange cult is in game activity. Me talking about a movie or looking at my phone is not something that my character is doing. It's out of game. In game are the activities that your character does. Out of game are activities that a player does but his character does not. View it however you want, however. We obviously view this differently.

The phone activity, whether you consider it in game or out of game, was apparently important enough for the DM to have to mention it in the scenario of his original post. Maybe so important that he is more than happy to say that the players forgot about the ring and gauntlet when they sold the armor...."when they wanted to check the ring and gauntlets that I reminded them that it was all in the set [sold]" as punishment.

Maybe I should rephrase this for you since you seem hung on ingame/out of game. The DM punished the group of characters for the actions of a player, not character, on his phone.

 

[ThirdWizard]

If the door was actively concealing the second lock in order to hide the ring, then...

It's a slightly different scenario. In your example, there's no way that the two locks are out of sight. With the armor there are ways that the gauntlets and ring could have been.

So, here's the thing, and this is the reason I say it's the DM's fault.

We have read the same Original Post. We both read different things into it. We see it from different angles, and we picture the scene differently.

This is the same thing that happens in a game of D&D. One person describes something, and each person uses their own assumptions and perspective to draw that scene in their mind as it plays out. Unspoken things are filled in. The player sees one thing happening in their head, and the DM sees a slightly different thing. The goal of the DM is to make those two things as close as possible.

Even the two of us, reading the same post see different things. What hope can we have to be sure what the player had imagined in his head? He may have seen the scene with the blacksmith pulling each part of the armor out individually. A breastplate here, an arm piece there, all piling it up nicely onto a table. Maybe he saw the blacksmith dump it out in front of both of them? Maybe in his mind, he was handing the blacksmith each piece. Maybe he saw the armor being one single piece, and the blacksmith pulled it out and stood the armor up on a stand, walking around it to examine it thoroughly.

Here's the important thing. We don't know. The DM doesn't know. The DM cannot know. There is question here.

The DM has the image in his mind of what is going on, but that is only in the DM's mind. Just like when we read the original post, we cannot know what really happened. All we have is a short description of events. We have to fill in the blanks. I find it best to give each individual the benefit of the doubt. But, in this case, the DM is not giving the player the benefit of the doubt. He has an image in his mind of what is going on, and he without alerting the player decides that the player character cannot see the gauntlets and ring.

This is an issue, because the player may not agree. And without any verbal communication going on, there is now a disconnect. And, it isn't an unimportant disconnect, because the player thinks he's just selling the adamantine armor and that he's keeping the gauntlet and ring. And, this is directly the result of a difference in fiction going on. The DM knows there's a disconnect, and yet he does nothing to solve it.

This is the crux of the issue for me, and why I fault the DM.

 

[Lanliss]

More insults? Maybe you find it fun when a DM makes you run headlong into a gorge to your death, but I don't think that's what I find fun.

Agency!

I am sorry, but I am not seeing any insults in these posts your quoting. I see a person saying "I like this type of fun, if you like a different type of fun more power to you". How is this insulting?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[ThirdWizard]

I am sorry, but I am not seeing any insults in these posts your quoting. I see a person saying "I like this type of fun, if you like a different type of fun more power to you". How is this insulting?

By misinterpreting my stance, stating something obvious that is fun, and then implying that I like the opposite.

 

[Lejaun]

Loki's Law: As the length of any thread on enworld increases, the probability of it turning into a player empowerment v. DM empowerment argument increases proportionally.

Perhaps this should be added to the law: When players are clearly unhappy with the DM's actions, as he so states in the first post, maybe any thread on enworld and empowerment and how much its length increases is irrelevant.

 

[TwoSix]

If the biggest moment of tension and drama in your session comes from when you play "Quartermasters and Quotas" with selling the loot, I'd advance you've probably done something wrong. Unless you're playing OD&D, of course, where the logistics of looting is the main point of play.

 

[Lejaun]

I am sorry, but I am not seeing any insults in these posts your quoting. I see a person saying "I like this type of fun, if you like a different type of fun more power to you". How is this insulting?

It implies that someone not finding that type of activity as fun has a lesser belief. You don't have to say "You're stupid" to get the same thought across. That is essentially what is happening here and why it is viewed as an insult.

 

[ExploderWizard]

No, it's not. Me saying my character is attacking a goblin is in game activity. Me asking the bar maid if she has heard about the strange cult is in game activity. Me talking about a movie or looking at my phone is not something that my character is doing. It's out of game. In game are the activities that your character does. Out of game are activities that a player does but his character does not. View it however you want, however. We obviously view this differently.

The phone activity, whether you consider it in game or out of game, was apparently important enough for the DM to have to mention it in the scenario of his original post. Maybe so important that he is more than happy to say that the players forgot about the ring and gauntlet when they sold the armor...."when they wanted to check the ring and gauntlets that I reminded them that it was all in the set [sold]" as punishment.

Maybe I should rephrase this for you since you seem hung on ingame/out of game. The DM punished the group of characters for the actions of a player, not character, on his phone.

I think where we disagree the most is what constitutes "punishment".

A player making stupid mistakes in game due to not paying attention isn't being punished, he/she is self inflicting the punishment.

A DM deciding to apply an XP penalty to a character due to not liking the table behavior of the player would be punishment.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think the real question [MENTION=6806492]randrak[/MENTION] has to ask himself is "If the guys are angry, do I care?"

I mean, isn't that really the whole point? He wrote this post telling us his players annoy him, and he ends it with the players genuinely pissed at him. But does that really matter? His thread title was "Was I In The Wrong?" so obviously he was curious how we felt about it... but nothing in what he wrote in the post itself gives any real indication that he felt bad about what he did. He made sure to word and do everything in such a way to force the players to be extra-careful and dilligent to avoid screwing themselves (the same way some DMs behave when they give the players a Ring of Wishes), and the players failed the test-- they lost the ring and gauntlets. So is he just looking for some verification that he doesn't need to feel bad about what he did? Well, he certainly got that... many of the folks here are on his side... so the point is made, isn't it?

Some people run D&D as a game you "win" by playing smart, paying attention, and making good tactical decisions. And if the players aren't on their game, then they'll miss things and the DM doesn't feel bad about it (nor goes out of his way to remind them of what they may or may not be missing.) If randrak is that kind of DM, then he accomplished what he wanted. All that's left is to decide whether or not he cares if his players don't "trust" any other NPCs in the game. Based upon how he ran the scenario... I don't know that he would. After all... if a player chooses to play his character as not trusting what anyone in the world says... so what? It just makes for different (but not necessarily bad) roleplaying experiences going forward.