Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ThirdWizard" data-source="post: 6843066" data-attributes="member: 12037">It was described as being stuck on the gauntlet. Whether the players interpreted that as not being able to get it off, not being able to get it off easily, or whatever, they didn't realize that in selling the armor they would also be selling the ring. The situation, thus, wasn't framed in such a way as they thought the ring was a part of the armor any more than you would believe that the ring was part of the spell scrolls it was holding in a bundle.The important thing here, at least what I think is important, is that the players never understood that they had never separated the items. Now, I guess it is an exercise to the reader whether that is due to some fault on the players' end or the DM's end. However, what I tend to focus on is that as soon as the players thought that they had separated the items and the DM thought they hadn't, and someone realized this inconsistency, it should have been addressed. Immediately addressed. Because, the fiction as the players understood it was incorrect, and they were operating under a set of beliefs in something that their PCs had done which they should have known that their PCs didn't actually do. Because what the DM thinks is true is true, and the players don't have that luxury of certainty in anything in the game world that the DM has.I really don't think it's the players' responsibility to specifically describe to the DM every detail of what they are not doing, which is what you describe here. I say, let it be enough that they describe what they are doing, and if at some point there is a misunderstanding as to what people meant then it can be handled amicably to the satisfaction of everyone.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ThirdWizard, post: 6843066, member: 12037"] It was described as being stuck on the gauntlet. Whether the players interpreted that as not being able to get it off, not being able to get it off easily, or whatever, they didn't realize that in selling the armor they would also be selling the ring. The situation, thus, wasn't framed in such a way as they thought the ring was a part of the armor any more than you would believe that the ring was part of the spell scrolls it was holding in a bundle. The important thing here, at least what I think is important, is that the players never understood that they had never separated the items. Now, I guess it is an exercise to the reader whether that is due to some fault on the players' end or the DM's end. However, what I tend to focus on is that as soon as the players thought that they had separated the items and the DM thought they hadn't, and someone realized this inconsistency, it should have been addressed. Immediately addressed. Because, the fiction as the players understood it was incorrect, and they were operating under a set of beliefs in something that their PCs had done which they should have known that their PCs didn't actually do. Because what the DM thinks is true is true, and the players don't have that luxury of certainty in anything in the game world that the DM has. I really don't think it's the players' responsibility to specifically describe to the DM every detail of what they are [I]not[/I] doing, which is what you describe here. I say, let it be enough that they describe what they are doing, and if at some point there is a misunderstanding as to what people meant then it can be handled amicably to the satisfaction of everyone. [/QUOTE]

Verification