D&D 5E Was I in the wrong?

[Maxperson]

Yes they should describe what they do. They shouldn't describe what they do not do. If there is ambiguity then you should clarify with them so you understand what they are actually stating they are doing.

There is ambiguity to virtually everything. Something can always be added to change a mistake to a non-mistake. The players don't get to retcon their mistakes by adding something to the situation after the fact and stating that was "ambiguous." They can be careful and describe what they do. Oh, and nobody is asking them to describe what they do not do.

 

[FrogReaver]

If you find them as as set, bundle them as a set, and get reminded at least once prior to selling the set that they are still part of that set. Yes.



1. pull them out of the set prior to selling.

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.

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.

 

[FrogReaver]

The way for the pcs to avoid selling things they done want to sell actually best comes with one phrase "I inspect this armor bundle to make sure only the items in expecting to find in it are there". Or in general "I carefully inspect the items in selling to make sure I know exactly what I'm about to sell".

So now the players are trained on the meta level to declare carefulness in every selling scenario and it avoids lack of insight into the items they are actually selling.

 

[Reflected_Shadows]

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!"

2. This is the only phrase that matters, really. From the OP: "The player had completely forgotten that the gauntlets of ogre strength and the ring were placed with the armor as part of the set (or he just wasn't paying attention when the barbarian told me he'd put it all together for later).". In other words, you want the players to always be paranoid about forgetting any detail. Combined with the above, this doesn't go anywhere good.

3. If the guy always on the phone is disrupting things or bothering you, that is a different issue - which is not justified by the behavior of "Gotcha!". From the OP: "Let me just say that my group is composed of my best friends,". Some friend you are! With a friend like you, who needs enemies? Always looking for ways to "har har" and "gotcha" at the expense of others. I get the impression that you are the guy just waiting for someone to fall asleep first during a sleepover so that you can shave eyebrows or give someone a tattoo on their forehead. You don't punish your friends. You don't "teach them lessons". You give them slack. And if someone is disrupting things, you make adult decisions about whether or not that player's behavior is a problem and if so, how you deal with that problem. Maybe the player doesn't actually want to play, but wants to "hang around" his friends who are together. If so, you can let that player run some monsters for example, or do something that caters to the player's wants/needs/desires.

I cannot believe that anyone actually thinks it is fun for the DM to be a jerk. And now all the players will be trained on the meta level to expect DM's to be jerks, that D&D to be a game about "gotcha!". I would also be very weary of someone who believes that if someone is inattentive that you are justified to "punish" and "teach a lesson" to that person.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I would also be very weary of someone who believes that if someone is inattentive that you are justified to "punish" and "teach a lesson" to that person.

So you think someone who doesn't pay attention to what is happening should get the same out of the game as someone who is engaged and paying attention?

Playing a game is like anything else-you get out of it what you put into it.

There isn't really a "lesson" here. If you care enough about the outcomes of play then you should care enough to pay attention. The only one punishing an inattentive player is the player.

 

[TwoSix]

So you think someone who doesn't pay attention to what is happening should get the same out of the game as someone who is engaged and paying attention?

Playing a game is like anything else-you get out of it what you put into it.

There isn't really a "lesson" here. If you care enough about the outcomes of play then you should care enough to pay attention. The only one punishing an inattentive player is the player.

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.

 

[Ristamar]

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.)

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.

Of course, the jerks that constantly use their brightly lit phones during the entirety of a movie are disrupting the enjoyment of others behind them, as well.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

Of course, the jerks that constantly use their brightly lit phones during the entirety of a movie are disrupting the enjoyment of others behind them, as well.

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?
2) How do we most effectively communicate intention between player and DM, especially since the information transfer between them is so highly asymmetrical?

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Objection, your honor. Facts not in evidence.

 

[psychophipps]

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!"

2. This is the only phrase that matters, really. From the OP: "The player had completely forgotten that the gauntlets of ogre strength and the ring were placed with the armor as part of the set (or he just wasn't paying attention when the barbarian told me he'd put it all together for later).". In other words, you want the players to always be paranoid about forgetting any detail. Combined with the above, this doesn't go anywhere good.

3. If the guy always on the phone is disrupting things or bothering you, that is a different issue - which is not justified by the behavior of "Gotcha!". From the OP: "Let me just say that my group is composed of my best friends,". Some friend you are! With a friend like you, who needs enemies? Always looking for ways to "har har" and "gotcha" at the expense of others. I get the impression that you are the guy just waiting for someone to fall asleep first during a sleepover so that you can shave eyebrows or give someone a tattoo on their forehead. You don't punish your friends. You don't "teach them lessons". You give them slack. And if someone is disrupting things, you make adult decisions about whether or not that player's behavior is a problem and if so, how you deal with that problem. Maybe the player doesn't actually want to play, but wants to "hang around" his friends who are together. If so, you can let that player run some monsters for example, or do something that caters to the player's wants/needs/desires.

I cannot believe that anyone actually thinks it is fun for the DM to be a jerk. And now all the players will be trained on the meta level to expect DM's to be jerks, that D&D to be a game about "gotcha!". I would also be very weary of someone who believes that if someone is inattentive that you are justified to "punish" and "teach a lesson" to that person.

Better said than I have apparently managed so far, sir!