D&D 5E Was I in the wrong?

[Maxperson]

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."?

How is every action a declaration?

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.

He should be clear then. It's not my job to try and figure out every little thing the player might mean, or to retcon situations just because the player says, "But I really wanted to..." They could pull that in all kinds of situations to avoid virtually everything negative that happens to them.

 

[Pandaemoni]

I think each time another page is added to this thread, D&D as a whole takes 1d4 psychic damage.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

How is every action a declaration?

By definition.

He should be clear then.

What if he thought he was clear?

It's not my job to try and figure out every little thing the player might mean

It is no more and no less your job to try and figure out what the player means than it is the player's job to phrase things in such a way that they are not only clear in meaning to the player, but also to you.

Which is to say it is joint responsibility between the player and DM to make certain that communication is understood as intended, both ways.

...or to retcon situations just because the player says, "But I really wanted to..."

Do you acknowledge that "But I really wanted to..." and "That's not what I meant when I said..." are two separate circumstances?

They could pull that in all kinds of situations to avoid virtually everything negative that happens to them.

I don't think that is as true as you think it is, considering that my players have negative things happen to their characters even though we constantly make sure we understand any vague statements to have the same meaning. Only the negative things that exist for no reason other than the DM understanding a phrase differently than intended and refusing to adjust events to the player's meaning rather than adjust the player's meaning to the events (read: the "gotcha" negative things) are affected.

 

[Maxperson]

By definition.

Prove it.

What if he thought he was clear?

Live and learn. Everyone makes mistakes. Player mistakes are not something wrong with the game or DM.

It is no more and no less your job to try and figure out what the player means than it is the player's job to phrase things in such a way that they are not only clear in meaning to the player, but also to you.

Then the player has no cause to complain if things don't work out the way he intends.

Which is to say it is joint responsibility between the player and DM to make certain that communication is understood as intended, both ways.

You seriously expect the DM and players to engage in a side conversation over every action the player states? Because that's the only way that's ever going to happen.

Do you acknowledge that "But I really wanted to..." and "That's not what I meant when I said..." are two separate circumstances?

Sure. The smart player will just use the latter, even for times when he did mean what he said. If I allowed retconning like that.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

You seriously expect the DM and players to engage in a side conversation over every action the player states? Because that's the only way that's ever going to happen.

That's odd, my players and I don't engage in a side conversation about every action they take, and yet we never run into this situation of the player meaning one thing and me as DM believing they meant something else.

Probably because not every statement made is vague, and not everyone needs more than context to see which meaning a vague statement was intended to have.

Sure. The smart player will just use the latter, even for times when he did mean what he said. If I allowed retconning like that.

Are you saying that if you as a DM misunderstand what a player is declaring that it is retconning for you to correct your misunderstanding? I don't think that is the case - the action/event was always what the player intended it to be. It hasn't changed. Just the DM's understanding has (from having the mis- prefix to not).

 

[pemerton]

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

I don't see how "default" is relevant here.

By "default", drow are elves. But at my table, if one of the participants talks about "the elf", we all know that what is meant is the (4e PHB) elf PC, not the drow PC. Likewise, we call the ranger-cleric "the ranger" even though the character is a hybrid build.

If a player says "the armour" and it is tolerably clear to everyone at the table that what is intended is the adamantine armour sans apparently magical gauntlets, then the fact that the noun phrase has some "default" meaning seems neither here nor there.

 

[pemerton]

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.

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.

What is the significance of your ought?

If, in fact, the players care more about kidnapped children and hauntings, than about the minutiae of bundling, unbundling, buying and selling, is that a flaw as players? If the players want to move fairly easily through the process of selling the loot and identifying the magic items so they can get back to the stuff that the find more engaging, is that a flaw?

I don't think that it is.

 

[ExploderWizard]

What is the significance of your ought?

If, in fact, the players care more about kidnapped children and hauntings, than about the minutiae of bundling, unbundling, buying and selling, is that a flaw as players? If the players want to move fairly easily through the process of selling the loot and identifying the magic items so they can get back to the stuff that the find more engaging, is that a flaw?

I don't think that it is.

If it isn't that important then it shouldn't be a big deal when they goof and sell something that they shouldn't. If it IS a big deal then it is rather important after all.

The players either care about it-thus it is important, or they don't in which case its time to shrug and move on.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't see how "default" is relevant here.

Because without something exceptional being said or done by the PC, the gauntlets get sold any and every time the armor is sold.

By "default", drow are elves. But at my table, if one of the participants talks about "the elf", we all know that what is meant is the (4e PHB) elf PC, not the drow PC. Likewise, we call the ranger-cleric "the ranger" even though the character is a hybrid build.

Thank you for providing an example of what I'm talking about. Drow are elves, but unless you call one out as different, the drow would simply be mixed in with every other elf.

The player didn't say anything about the gauntlets or ring, so nothing indicated to the DM or anyone else that they weren't part of the set. Rewinding time later to undo it is a poor solution for a series of mistakes on the part of the player.

If a player says "the armour" and it is tolerably clear to everyone at the table that what is intended is the adamantine armour sans apparently magical gauntlets, then the fact that the noun phrase has some "default" meaning seems neither here nor there.

That wasn't clear as the gauntlets were a part of "the armor" and without being called out as different by the player, would be sold with the set.

 

[Pandaemoni]

D&D grips its head and winces, as page 66 inflicts 2 points of psychic damage!