Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 6847152" data-attributes="member: 6778044">First, the DM specifically said he did not do this in retaliation to a player. So that's not a factor here.Otherwise I agree overall with your statement, except to point out that in the course of a game, there may be situations or incidents that one or more of the players don't like. The real question as to whether the DM has succeeded or not cannot be measured against a single incident/situation/scenario. Some times it also can't be measured immediately after the fact. In most cases the measurement is at a macro level. For example, was this session fun? Is this campaign fun? Is playing with this DM fun.The boundaries of the agreed upon ruleset, particularly in a ruleset as open-ended as D&D, is an evolving thing at any table. There are too many possibilities to be able to cover everything from the outset, so a scenario like this is also often a learning experience about that agreed upon ruleset.A RAW example of something equally (if not more) contentious is the idea of the DM fudging. It is explicitly called out as an acceptable tool for the DM, but not everybody agrees with that. It's important for the table to know whether or not the table agrees with a rule like this, although it may not come up for discussion until a situation triggers it. In this case, there are a number of factors at play that show a bit of their agreed upon ruleset. What's important here is that the DM's stated goals aren't entirely reflected in his or the players actions. Two key ones are:1) Paying attention. While the DM expresses a wish for them to pay closer attention, and that at least one of the players is a larger offender than the others, he (and the table) have decided (as evidenced in their actions) that it's OK to use your phone at the table for non game related purposes.2) Table talk. They are OK with non game related conversation, at least when the player's characters aren't immediately involved in the situation. So the Monk and Barbarian having a side conversation is fine while the ranger is busy selling things (and the sorcerer is on his phone). This also covers questions about whether players can participate even when their character's aren't present. Is it OK for the ranger to listen (and their character to know) what is being told to the barbarian and monk when he's not present? It would appear the DM thinks it's OK, but the players seem to be more interested in other conversations/phones than taking advantage of that. There isn't any evidence as to whether it's OK for the players not present at the smith can help the player who is. Again, it appears that they are more interested in their side conversation at that time.The disconnect is whether the DM is responsible for reminding/telling the PCs important information they may have missed when they aren't paying attention, or when they seem to have forgotten something that the DM thinks they might consider important. This isn't necessarily a one-size-fits-all solution. Selling a suit of armor vs. jumping into a flaming tree (from an earlier example) may have different thresholds, for many reasons. I, and my players, feel that if the players are not paying attention, and have missed/forgotten information, that's their problem. If one missed information because they were in the bathroom, I remind the other players to fill them in. Depending on the circumstance I might jump in to fill in any blanks I feel they missed that should be known. I would have done this when they originally found the armor. That is, if the ranger had been in the bathroom, and they failed to tell him about the gauntlets, I might prompt them, or I might just give the description again. I would not extend the same courtesy when they are selling the armor. They've had plenty of time to ask questions, remind each other (by holding conversations about what's going on in the game), etc. This is not a punitive decision. I'm not punishing them for their behavior. But I'm not rewarding it either. They don't get an extra check to overcome their lack of participation. If I felt it should be obvious that the ranger would see the gauntlets as something unique based on all of the events leading up to the interaction, I would provide some type of check(s) and go with, and whatever result, well, resulted. The DM in this case did this. Whether we think he provided enough checks, the right kind of checks, or he should have been more descriptive is one debate. Whether the DM should take advantage of this situation is another. One of the results of this particular interest could be a (apparently long-needed) discussion about proper gaming etiquette. The gauntlet (literally and figuratively) has been thrown down. If you don't pay attention to the details, you might miss something. On the other hand, if you're paying attention and are engaged in the game, I won't penalize you for forgetting a detail every once in a while. If there's something important, though, I'd recommend you write it down, talk about it, describe your actions in more detail, or otherwise make it clear what your intentions are.After the discussion, I'd probably let the table decide whether or not the sale should stand for this particular situation, with the fair warning that if a similar situation occurred in the future, the results might be different.The DM has far more to keep track of then the players. If they are actually paying attention, the idea of remembering that the suit of armor potentially has some special properties isn't excessively burdensome. If it's easier for them to remember using a tablet, phone, or writing it down, then they should do that. But the players have a responsibility to keep track of what's important to them. I don't think losing a potential magic item is that big a loss. The death of a character would probably be different.--If there's anything wrong with how the DM handled it, it would be when the party returned to the blacksmith to confront him. There doesn't seem to be any attempt to engage the rules for this particular interaction. While I lean heavily on the role-playing, I use that to modify the DC for any skill checks. There should have been some Persuasion or Intimidation checks here at the very least. The chance may have been slim to convince the smith to give the items back, but it should have been there.Ilbranteloth</blockquote>

Verification