Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AaronOfBarbaria" data-source="post: 6857064" data-attributes="member: 6701872">Evidence presented by the OP strongly suggests otherwise. If there were nothing to clarify, the players would not have had a different idea about what had gone down than the DM did - they never would have had that moment of trying to identify the ring and gauntlets they had just sold.Except he didn't because the DM presented the gauntlets to the party as not actually being part of the set, according to information given to us by the OP.A question that has been shown to not actually clarify anything since it could be asked exactly as worded whether &quot;all of it&quot; meant all the pieces normally in a suit of armor, or it meant all the pieces normally in a suit of armor and also the ring.Not according to what the DM told us in the OP, he didn't.That's true. It's also irrelevant.What the player knows or doesn't know has no bearing on whether a statement they make is vague or not, unless the DM can read their mind.It is only what the DM knows that is necessary for a statement made by the player to be vague, because upon hearing it the DM knows that either the player meant this, or the player meant that. That little moment where the DM thinks &quot;...did the player forget about the ring?&quot; is the proof that the statement &quot;I sell the armor&quot; with no mention of the ring becomes vague - because if the player doesn't know there is a ring, they can't mean to be including it, but if they do know there is a ring they can mean to be excluding it by not mentioning it, and the DM doesn't know which because the DM cannot read the player's mind.Yes, Max, if the situation were entirely different I would treat it as an entirely different situation. Not at all sure why you think that is relevant.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AaronOfBarbaria, post: 6857064, member: 6701872"] Evidence presented by the OP strongly suggests otherwise. If there were nothing to clarify, the players would not have had a different idea about what had gone down than the DM did - they never would have had that moment of trying to identify the ring and gauntlets they had just sold. Except he didn't because the DM presented the gauntlets to the party as not actually being part of the set, according to information given to us by the OP. A question that has been shown to not actually clarify anything since it could be asked exactly as worded whether "all of it" meant all the pieces normally in a suit of armor, or it meant all the pieces normally in a suit of armor and also the ring. Not according to what the DM told us in the OP, he didn't. That's true. It's also irrelevant. What the player knows or doesn't know has no bearing on whether a statement they make is vague or not, unless the DM can read their mind. It is only what the DM knows that is necessary for a statement made by the player to be vague, because upon hearing it the DM knows that either the player meant [I]this[/I], or the player meant [I]that[/I]. That little moment where the DM thinks "...did the player forget about the ring?" is the proof that the statement "I sell the armor" with no mention of the ring becomes vague - because if the player doesn't know there is a ring, they can't mean to be including it, but if they do know there is a ring they can mean to be excluding it by not mentioning it, and the DM doesn't know which because the DM cannot read the player's mind. Yes, Max, if the situation were entirely different I would treat it as an entirely different situation. Not at all sure why you think that is relevant. [/QUOTE]

Verification