D&D 5E Was I in the wrong?

[Tony Vargas]

Or create some weird non-Tolkien or low magic setting.

Relative to typical D&D worlds like Oerth or FR, Middle Earth was a low magic setting.

This is all really simple. We're complicating it with assumptions and partial facts.

The core advice that should be given:

While a character can be tricked by an NPC, a player should never feel tricked by the DM.

Wow, guess a lot of DMs were having wrongbadfun back in the day - and are doing so again playing OSR games and, well, 5e, because 5e is pretty open to that style, again (in keeping with it's goals of supporting more styles, and being for everyone who ever loved D&D, including those older editions were 'gotchya' moments were de rigueur).

How can a character be tricked without the player being tricked?

Roll a deception check out in the open, and trust the player to RP appropriately. Not hard, but not the only way to do it 5e, where the DM is free to decide when a check is called for.

A DM should never punish characters for player behavior.

Nothing you do in game as a DM should be punishment for the actions of a player. The character issues and the player issues are two separate things and need to be treated as such (to the extent possible).

Sure. Not so much that it'd be unfair to the player, as it's just unlikely to be effective at moderating the player's bad behavior compared to just communicating honestly with him.

Then again, bad player behaviors can spill over into RP and character actions, which may still have consequences in game...

 

[Noctem]

But even then Tony, I would argue that if the player's bad behavior spills over into character: You should be the better person and not sink to that level, resolving the problem out of character instead. Go for the source, not the symptom.

 

[seebs]

My general experience is that if players feel like the DM has tricked them, they tend to feel that this is unfair. The DM's job is to be the arbiter, not the antagonist.

 

[ThirdWizard]

For the record, if I was a player in this game, I would respond something like, "Okay, you got me there. You're technically correct. I'll try to pay more attention in game, but in the future if my character is present for something I'm going to expect you, the DM, to clear up any misconceptions about what I think I'm seeing and what my PC is actually seeing. Sound like a fair deal? Now, let's try to get these items back."

I wouldn't throw a fit, but I also wouldn't expect something like that to be a common occurrence. Everybody's expectations should be out in the open and agreed upon. If it hadn't been brought up before, then now is the time to talk about it like adults, get on the same page, and proceed from a new, common, perspective.

DMs sometimes have trouble seeing things from a player's perspective and players sometimes from a DM's. A little talking about things like this can go a long way.

 

[Yardiff]

Incorrect, he stated the group multiple times was unhappy with what he has done. However, he's focusing on the guy with the cell phone because that's his justification for his actions. You're falling for the justification doesn't make it legitimate or even relevant.

Magic item identification isn't even the issue. Stop trying to bring it up to muddy the waters. It was stated in passing to explain that information should have been shared by the rules. If he doesn't want to follow the rules then he has a responsibility to create an alternate means to relay the information to his group, which I believe he did when he described the ring and gauntlet as being like the one ring from LOTR.

But hey, if you're going to reduce yourself to pointing out that he doesn't use the magical item ID rules from 5e in his home game and then try to dismiss my posts with a flippant reference to another thread then that's fine. It just means you have nothing of value to contribute either.

You stated you don't think he did anything wrong. Great. Good for you. I think he maliciously screwed over a group of people he calls his "best friends" via in game passive aggressive bs, which totally failed to address the out of character problem he has with a specific player; which he then used to justify his actions while at the same time seeking reassurance online that he did nothing wrong.

Agree to disagree.

Its sound like this whole thread is VERY personal to you. So are you part of the OPs gaming group?

 

[Noctem]

It's not personal, it might be the way I post that is leading you to that conclusion or the way I reply to others who seek to make the discussion personal (lowkey for example).

 

[Lanliss]

That's a good point. So what was the connection between cell phone guy and the situation with the ring being sold? Was it because his character would have gotten the ring?

As far as I can tell the series of events goes like this.

1-Player does not pay attention, is barely invested in the game.
2-something bad happens
3-Player who never has any interaction with the game complains the most out of anybody

That is the connection.

 

[Noctem]

As far as I can tell the series of events goes like this.


1-Player does not pay attention, is barely invested in the game.
2-something bad happens
3-Player who never has any interaction with the game complains the most out of anybody


That is the connection.

You know what that tells me?

Someone who complains about an event like that the most is probably one of the more INVESTED people at the table. So as much as I see the OP complain about a guy being on his phone, there's most definitely another side to that specific coin. Especially since the OP is using this aspect of the story to justify his actions.

 

[Lanliss]

You know what that tells me?

Someone who complains about an event like that the most is probably one of the more INVESTED people at the table. So as much as I see the OP complain about a guy being on his phone, there's most definitely another side to that specific coin. Especially since the OP is using this aspect of the story to justify his actions.

There are a lot of possible ways to read his reaction. The phone guy might be more invested in the story than was previously thought. He might also just be in it for the loot, and was the most unhappy about losing that loot. It could swing either way, but we will never really know until he gets on here himself to tell his side.

 

[ExploderWizard]

You know what that tells me?

Someone who complains about an event like that the most is probably one of the more INVESTED people at the table. So as much as I see the OP complain about a guy being on his phone, there's most definitely another side to that specific coin. Especially since the OP is using this aspect of the story to justify his actions.

Or perhaps just the biggest crybaby.

One can care about the outcome of a game ( be invested) and still not pay attention during play.

A grownup would be able to see the connection between lax attention and poor outcomes and correct the problem.

A child would throw a tantrum believing themselves entitled to favorable outcomes regardless of effort.