Am I being salty about nothing?

[Thrudd]

I'm not sure how common this attitude is, but to me there's a big difference between things I can't affect as a player just because the GM says I can't and things that just can't be affected in-universe. For example, I'm much more okay if the GM have decided in advance that a certain group of enemies is powerful enough to almost certainly win a fight than if the GM just decide that we lose, no matter how many enemies we kill or clever plans we come up with, even though the end result is basically the same.

In this case, it sounds like there wasn't anything the characters could've done in-universe (unlike if they're being pickpocketed, for example). That said, I'm also rather particular about things being consistent, so if there wasn't some good reason for the mules to be brought along but not the carts, I might get salty about that instead.

The question here, is whether the DM should have followed the module they were running, or decided to alter what was written to allow them to keep their cart and pumpkins. I'd say they made a compromise by allowing them to keep the mules. There's isn't a roll you can make to avoid the magical mist that brings you to the adventure. It's valid to critique the technique employed by this (and earlier Ravenloft) modules to get the characters to Barovia - but that's what they're running.

[Rater202]

I'm not sure how common this attitude is, but to me there's a big difference between things I can't affect as a player just because the GM says I can't and things that just can't be affected in-universe. For example, I'm much more okay if the GM have decided in advance that a certain group of enemies is powerful enough to almost certainly win a fight than if the GM just decide that we lose, no matter how many enemies we kill or clever plans we come up with, even though the end result is basically the same.

In this case, it sounds like there wasn't anything the characters could've done in-universe (unlike if they're being pickpocketed, for example). That said, I'm also rather particular about things being consistent, so if there wasn't some good reason for the mules to be brought along but not the carts, I might get salty about that instead.

Fair enough but if the PCs spend in-character resources on something they shouldn't lose it without using it, even if the GM has to fudge the rules a bit.

Same reason why enemies never aim for the backpack or the wizard's spellbook. Realistically they would for tactical reasons but taking away the PCs toys makes the game less fun.

It's like... In the second edition of Chronicles of Darkness they made it an explicit rule that the Storyteller can't take away any items or npcs your character has because of merits unless they refund you the full XP cost. I'm operating on the same logic: The GM can't arbitrarily take things away from the PCs.

[Keltest]

That's a bit of a strawman of my argument. Obviously bad things have to happen or there's no plot. What doesn't need to happen is the GM arbitrarily doing things to the PCs that the players have no chance to counter. Like being teleported to another realm without a large number of supplies you spent a finite resource on with no save despite being awake and standing guard.

Using the health potion example: The player making the call to spend gold on consumables and then using it for it's intended purpose isn't GM fiat.
GM fiat would be if a PC spent gold on a potion and then the motion wasn't there when they went for it because they got pickpocketed and the GM didn't let them roll to notice.

In this case the GM let them sell the trinket, let them by a cart and a bunch of pumpkins, and then arbitrarily took it away from them without a roll.

Why are you assuming its arbitrary? Theyre playing a module where one of the specific intents is for the DM to screw with the players. If nothing else, there is the obvious "living/nonliving creature" divide between the mules and the cart.

Frankly, its not the DM's job to stop the players from playing themselves sometimes either.

[Rater202]

Why are you assuming its arbitrary? Theyre playing a module where one of the specific intents is for the DM to screw with the players. If nothing else, there is the obvious "living/nonliving creature" divide between the mules and the cart.

Frankly, its not the DM's job to stop the players from playing themselves sometimes either.

Well, for one I'm assuming that the PCs didn't spawn into Ravenloft buck naked because the OP would have shared that information.

If some non-living things made the jump, then it becomes questionable that others didn't.

We also don't know that the PCs played themselves: They obviously thought that they'd get to make use of the cart and/or pumpkins so presumably, they didn't think they'd randomly lose them that night.

We also don't know if they knew they'd be doing this module ahead of time. You could argue they land themselves if they did, but if the GM sprung this o them then the GM should have fudged things so that they kept the stuff that they spent a finite in-character resource on.

Or just not let them buy stuff in the first place. As I said, if the GM didn't want them to have a cart and pumpkins then Pumpkins could have been out of season and nobody had a cart to sell.

[Keltest]

Well, for one I'm assuming that the PCs didn't spawn into Ravenloft buck naked because the OP would have shared that information.

If some non-living things made the jump, then it becomes questionable that others didn't.

We also don't know that the PCs played themselves: They obviously thought that they'd get to make use of the cart and/or pumpkins so presumably, they didn't think they'd randomly lose them that night.

We also don't know if they knew they'd be doing this module ahead of time. You could argue they land themselves if they did, but if the GM sprung this o them then the GM should have fudged things so that they kept the stuff that they spent a finite in-character resource on.

Or just not let them buy stuff in the first place. As I said, if the GM didn't want them to have a cart and pumpkins then Pumpkins could have been out of season and nobody had a cart to sell.

"living creatures and what they had on their persons" seems perfectly consistent to me.

And it seems pretty strange to insist that the DM doesnt have legitimate ability to take away the possessions of the players, but he does have the legitimate ability to flat out forbid them from going shopping or spending gold on DM Approved (tm) items.

[oxybe]

Not regarding the OP per-se, more some of the responses -
How ridiculously cash-poor (and yet cash-requiring) campaigns are people playing that 100 gp is a big deal, precious character resources without which you might as well give up?

Like, in 3.x that doesn't buy much! A couple 1st level potions, some of the cheapest utility items ... and for anything significant it's a drop in the bucket. I guess in 5E that's a Common item or a decent chunk of an Uncommon one, so it's better, but still a small fraction of a Rare item - and that's assuming it's a campaign where items can be bought at all.

So - are there a bunch of "the PCs are paupers" campaigns out there I'm unaware of?

Eh ... trading the locket for a bunch of pumpkins to sell is a lateral move, flavor-wise, unless the PC really dreamed of being a pumpkin farmer or something. In fact you could argue it's trading flavor away for utility - but personally the pumpkins are novel enough that I like it. It's an interesting and valid move by a PC that didn't happen to work out on this particular occasion due to external factors.

But that's what happens sometimes! If you consider external factors and any hindrance to the PCs plans a bad thing, then what you're looking for is "writing a story" - much the same as a GM who considers any hindrance to their planned plot a bad thing.

Starting with your second point: Once bitten, twice shy. If investing resources into the GM's world means they can just get poofed away without anything you can do about it, why invest in the GM's world? Seriously. because if the GM is just gonna do whatever the heck he wants that's, to use your turn of a phrase, "writing a story".

Again, this isn't a "hindrance": it's just a tasteless and random loss of stuff. There's really no factor the PCs could've reasonably planned for outside of "not doing the content the GM had planned for the night". I come to the session with the general agreement that yeah, i'm gonna roll with what the GM has planned, but also the agreement that he's not gonna unceremoniously mess with me.

As for the first point of D&D poverty mode, I'm currently playing in a 5e Rime of the Frostmaiden campaign.

We're level 4 and I think we may level up next session if we manage to get to town since we just gauntleted our way through a few fights.

Looking at my character sheet? Combined I've got just shy of 40GP in coin, outside of my Chainmail and Warhammer (starting equipment) my most expensive items are a single healing potion and 100ft of silk rope. I, technically, have a magic item but if i attune myself to it it begins constantly jabbering repetitive sequence of a language I don't understand and while doesn't magically compel me to act, it makes it so that something vaguely south has my attention. So yeah, that thing is like wrapped in a shirt, double bagged and hidden in the bottom of my backpack until i figure out a way to make it not drive you crazy.

Because we're up north in the middle of bumbleheck nowhere the few things we may want to buy are also overpriced by up to twice as much as PHB price as it's hard to get stuff shipped to the middle of the tundra.

I dunno if we have just terrible luck or the module is written to keep the PC broke as heck, but scrimping and scrounging has been the name of the game.

We've been basically doing the D&D equivalent of living paycheque to paycheque.

My time with Descent into Avernus had a similar issue: I joined the game partway through when they were well into hell and gold was largely useless and what gold I did have, there was little to nothing to spend it on as Soul coins were the currency of choice and even then as a group we only had a handful between us, mostly being used as a token to get a plot mcguffin or as fuel to get from point a to point b in the wacky races-esque war machines.

So yeah, my experience with the prewritten stuff is that the designers want to keep you broke as hell.

[Rater202]

And it seems pretty strange to insist that the DM doesnt have legitimate ability to take away the possessions of the players, but he does have the legitimate ability to flat out forbid them from going shopping or spending gold on DM Approved (tm) items.

The GM doe snot have the legimtate ability to render harm onto the PCs in ways that the PCs have no means of defending against: Taking away their items without them having a chance to prevent the loss falls under this category.

The GM does, however, have the legitimate ability to establish the ground rules of a scenario, which would include what items are and are not available for sale in the local market.

To use a deliberatly exaggerated example: Just because a PC wants to buy a dragon egg, that doens't meant that there's someone selling dragon eggs in town.

[Batcathat]

Same reason why enemies never aim for the backpack or the wizard's spellbook. Realistically they would for tactical reasons but taking away the PCs toys makes the game less fun.

We probably shouldn't get too into it to avoid derailing the thread, but I feel like I should point out that these "rules" aren't omnipresent. I remember a thread a year or two ago about whether or not it was okay for enemies to target a wizard's component pouch and there were plenty of strong opinions on both sides, so while everyone probably agrees the game should be as fun as it can be, not everyone agrees on what that looks like.

I suppose both whether or not enemies aren't allowed certain tactics and whether or not things like the OP's scenario are okay are session zero material.

[Keltest]

The GM doe snot have the legimtate ability to render harm onto the PCs in ways that the PCs have no means of defending against: Taking away their items without them having a chance to prevent the loss falls under this category.

The GM does, however, have the legitimate ability to establish the ground rules of a scenario, which would include what items are and are not available for sale in the local market.

To use a deliberatly exaggerated example: Just because a PC wants to buy a dragon egg, that doens't meant that there's someone selling dragon eggs in town.

Sure he does. The GM is not obligated to be fair. If the players are meant to run away from a scenario instead of standing to fight it, for example, but they do so anyway, the GM is perfectly within their rights to pull the trigger until the players either get the hint or die. Likewise, if the players decide to expend a resource on a bunch of useless nonsense, thats their decision to make.

[Rater202]

The GM is not obligated to be fair. The GM is also not obligated to have players.

Playing fair is part of the social contract of the game.

[Keltest]

The GM is not obligated to be fair. The GM is also not obligated to have players.

Playing fair is part of the social contract of the game.

Its literally the world against 4-6 people, the game already isnt fair. And I dont just mean in the sense that thats the premise of the module.

[Talakeal]

Same reason why enemies never aim for the backpack or the wizard's spellbook. Realistically they would for tactical reasons but taking away the PCs toys makes the game less fun.

Not fun for you.

I personally wouldn’t enjoy a game where I have arbitrary plot armor.

[Morgaln]

"living creatures and what they had on their persons" seems perfectly consistent to me.

And it seems pretty strange to insist that the DM doesnt have legitimate ability to take away the possessions of the players, but he does have the legitimate ability to flat out forbid them from going shopping or spending gold on DM Approved (tm) items.

The OP said that it was night when the transport happened and that they had someone on guard. That implies some of them were resting. I assume that people do not sleep with their weapons, armor and backpacks fixed to their bodies. Even if they were just sitting around a campfire, I seriously doubt they hadn't taken off their backpacks at the very least. So by your reasoning, they should have lost quite a bit of equipment. If that had been the case, I'm quite sure the OP would have mentioned it.
So since stuff got transported that wasn't on anyone's person and other stuff didn't, the choice was arbitrary.

[Pauly]

The GM doe snot have the legimtate ability to render harm onto the PCs in ways that the PCs have no means of defending against: Taking away their items without them having a chance to prevent the loss falls under this category.

The GM does, however, have the legitimate ability to establish the ground rules of a scenario, which would include what items are and are not available for sale in the local market.

To use a deliberatly exaggerated example: Just because a PC wants to buy a dragon egg, that doens't meant that there's someone selling dragon eggs in town.

The GM is not obligated to prevent the players making bad decisions. Except, maybe, in the case of campaign ending bad decisions.
In this case the player who received the item made 2 bad decisions.
- Sell an obvious MacGuffin
- Spend most of the money on useless* trade goods with the proceeds.

In this case we aren’t talking about Frodo selling the one ring in Bree in the Prancing Pony so he can buy another round of beers. Given the nature of the item and who gave it to the party my guess is that it was intended to give the PCs an ally within Ravenloft, someone recognizes the Duchess’ crest and then reacts favorably to the party kind of thing. The players made a decision and the game moved on with the consequences of that decision.

*useless as in they don’t provide a bonus or in game effect to the player’s actions,

[Dr.Samurai]

I am so surprised that in a game where you'll be fighting vampires and werewolves and wielding legendary artifacts against the undead... people are THIS concerned about a cart and some pumpkins.

I get being a bit annoyed that things went down the way they did but it seems to me there's a terrible amount of not keeping things in perspective going on around here. Many assumptions are being made about the DM as if sheaths of wheat and pumpkins are super integral to the game and removing them from player custody is a major setback. They are not. Like, at all. It's not that serious.

I'd expect this type of reaction if the DM took magic weapons or armor right before the PCs were entering a pivotal battle or something. And if the DM did it often. But that's not at all what's going on here.

[Pex]

Why are you assuming its arbitrary? Theyre playing a module where one of the specific intents is for the DM to screw with the players. If nothing else, there is the obvious "living/nonliving creature" divide between the mules and the cart.

Frankly, its not the DM's job to stop the players from playing themselves sometimes either.

If the module itself tells the DM to be a donkey cavity to the players that's not the defense you think it is. That's a condemnation on the module for encouraging such DM behavior.

[oxybe]

I am so surprised that in a game where you'll be fighting vampires and werewolves and wielding legendary artifacts against the undead... people are THIS concerned about a cart and some pumpkins.

I get being a bit annoyed that things went down the way they did but it seems to me there's a terrible amount of not keeping things in perspective going on around here. Many assumptions are being made about the DM as if sheaths of wheat and pumpkins are super integral to the game and removing them from player custody is a major setback. They are not. Like, at all. It's not that serious.

I'd expect this type of reaction if the DM took magic weapons or armor right before the PCs were entering a pivotal battle or something. And if the DM did it often. But that's not at all what's going on here.

Because the pumpkins are largely stand-in for player agency.

It doesn't matter that it's pumpkins specifically.

Let's say the players bought 100gp worth of flippytigewgas after selling an item they had no attachment to.

IME in a WotC module 100gp is a heck of a lot of cash early on. The reason for the flippytigewgas purchase doesn't matter: whether they were purchased for food, trade, construction, personal attachment or whatever. They wanted to buy the and the GM said "yes".

And then it's just gone. Nothing they could have done could've stopped it from occurring. They're out the original item they sold+whatever personal gold they invested in addition to the gold they got from the item and their flippytigewgas.

Replace flippytigewgas with "pumpkin", "magic weapon", "healing potions","orphaned puppies","innocent orc babies" or whatever you like.

Or to break it down as simple as possible:

Player:"Can I sell [thing I don't care for] and buy [thing of interest]?"
DM: yes
Also DM: now you no longer have [thing of interest].

[Mastikator]

You're right. Now they know better then to spend their gold on anything flavourful or non-essential and anything given to them by NPCs will be unceremoniously put in the bottom of their backpack when outside of the NPC's sight and be promptly forgotten about until relevant, like all good NPC items.

Players buying stuff and becoming merchants is really great for some types of campaigns, especially sandbox campaigns where it is important that the players identify with the setting. These things are great because they allow the players to put down some roots.

For a meatgrinder like CoS it's a distraction. The DM did the right thing to take them away.

[Pauly]

Because the pumpkins are largely stand-in for player agency.
[snip]

Or to break it down as simple as possible:

Player:"Can I sell [thing I don't care for] and buy [thing of interest]?"
DM: yes
Also DM: now you no longer have [thing of interest].

Alternatively.
Players: Sign on to a Curse of Strahd campaign. They know by reputation that the module is a bit of a meatgrinder that puts the party in difficult situations.
GM: Gifts a player a Maguffin (nb player doesn’t earn the Maguffin and the GM does everything but put a neon flashing sign saying “this is a Maguffin” on it). The reasonable inference is that this will be a helpful Maguffin.
Player: Sells plot relevant Maguffin for gold.
GM: Allows player to have agency
Player: Uses gold to buy non plot relevant stuff.
GM: Moves onto next plot point, the byproduct of which is that the plot irrelevant stuff becomes completely irrelevant.

The issue isn’t the GM cancelling the player’s agency. The issue is that players used their agency on plot irrelevant stuff. The GM didn’t waste the player’s time effort and resources, the players did it to themselves.

[Batcathat]

The issue isn’t the GM cancelling the player’s agency. The issue is that players used their agency on plot irrelevant stuff. The GM didn’t waste the player’s time effort and resources, the players did it to themselves.

I guess a lot of it comes down to the question of whether the GM should stop players from making mistakes and I don't think there's a single answer to that question. Some groups would be pissed about the GM letting them waste their money on something the GM knew would be taken away, some groups would be pissed about GM giving them meta-knowledge their characters wouldn't have (some groups would probably be pissed about either, people aren't always very rational).

[Pex]

Alternatively.
Players: Sign on to a Curse of Strahd campaign. They know by reputation that the module is a bit of a meatgrinder that puts the party in difficult situations.
GM: Gifts a player a Maguffin (nb player doesn’t earn the Maguffin and the GM does everything but put a neon flashing sign saying “this is a Maguffin” on it). The reasonable inference is that this will be a helpful Maguffin.
Player: Sells plot relevant Maguffin for gold.
GM: Allows player to have agency
Player: Uses gold to buy non plot relevant stuff.
GM: Moves onto next plot point, the byproduct of which is that the plot irrelevant stuff becomes completely irrelevant.

The issue isn’t the GM cancelling the player’s agency. The issue is that players used their agency on plot irrelevant stuff. The GM didn’t waste the player’s time effort and resources, the players did it to themselves.

I stand by what I wrote before in terms of the module, if it actually does that, but yes this. I'm with Tanarii on this. The person to blame, if there is to be blame, is on the player who sold the jewelry. Oxybe is right the DM should not take away player agency, but I don't find that's what happened here given the players knew the campaign they were to play going in. I have a suspicion the player who got the pumpkins did so not because he was interested in pumpkins but that he wanted to derail the game. It could just be me being cynical, but with my own bias I cannot fathom why a player would sell a gift from a noble for vegetables. The player knew it was a McGuffin and wanted to disrupt whatever plan the DM had. Some players just do that for their own jollies. If the player wasn't trying to derail the game my other cynical suspicion is the player was metagaming. Knowing they are playing this module the player figured pumpkins would be rare if not existent in Barovia, and he would get rich selling them there. The only way I can see the player to be absolutely innocent is if it's his first D&D/RPG game ever and doesn't know how things work, so to speak.

[oxybe]

Alternatively.
Players: Sign on to a Curse of Strahd campaign. They know by reputation that the module is a bit of a meatgrinder that puts the party in difficult situations.
GM: Gifts a player a Maguffin (nb player doesn’t earn the Maguffin and the GM does everything but put a neon flashing sign saying “this is a Maguffin” on it). The reasonable inference is that this will be a helpful Maguffin.
Player: Sells plot relevant Maguffin for gold.
GM: Allows player to have agency
Player: Uses gold to buy non plot relevant stuff.
GM: Moves onto next plot point, the byproduct of which is that the plot irrelevant stuff becomes completely irrelevant.

The issue isn’t the GM cancelling the player’s agency. The issue is that players used their agency on plot irrelevant stuff. The GM didn’t waste the player’s time effort and resources, the players did it to themselves.

Bolded is where the GM screwed up.

The GM could have easily said "no, McGuffin is a hot commodity and no one would buy it" or "no [thing i don't want to focus on] is not available for purchase"

but they did say yes on both accounts, they let the pcs spend their gold and now they are sans McGuffin or Gold or [thing].

The PCs are fundamentally worse off then before because the GM let them do a thing he probably didn't want them to do, didn't make it clear, and is punishing the players because they failed for forecast his plans.

[Pauly]

Bolded is where the GM screwed up.

The GM could have easily said "no, McGuffin is a hot commodity and no one would buy it" or "no [thing i don't want to focus on] is not available for purchase"

but they did say yes on both accounts, they let the pcs spend their gold and now they are sans McGuffin or Gold or [thing].

The PCs are fundamentally worse off then before because the GM let them do a thing he probably didn't want them to do, didn't make it clear, and is punishing the players because they failed for forecast his plans.

That’s only true if they’re Frodo selling the one ring. But if they’re Sam selling Galadriel’s rope, then it’s OK to let the players sell it. There is a huge difference between ‘You need this item to complete the campaign’ and ‘this item will reduce the difficulty level of some later challenges’.

[oxybe]

That’s only true if they’re Frodo selling the one ring. But if they’re Sam selling Galadriel’s rope, then it’s OK to let the players sell it. There is a huge difference between ‘You need this item to complete the campaign’ and ‘this item will reduce the difficulty level of some later challenges’.

You're talking about a DM's future knowledge of the module. To the characters or players unless it's explicitly mentioned there's no immediate difference if the item is necessary, something to help them later or just some backpack weight they hope .

The players and by extension the characters sold a necklace they got as a reward and they had no attachment to. Did they, the players know it was going to be future important? Did the characters know? Or was it just presented as a bonus for a job done and effectively cash in a different form (see: gems, art pieces, fine silks, etc... mentioned to be worth X amount GP one would traditionally find in treasure hoards or stashes)?

They then bought things they were interested in, whether it was a player whim or in-character choice (this latter bit can be important because the CHARACTERS don't know they're playing Curse of Strahd or that they're going to be mist'd away).

This is Sam selling the rope he found for a nice new sickle to tend the herbs and garden and then having it just disappear after leaving Lothlorien because it's "not plot relevant".

I'm not familiar with Curse of Strahd. I haven't played it so I'm talking from entirely an outsider's point of view and it simply looks like a GM punishing a player for no valid reason.

Our player

A) did not have metaknowledge on the importance of the necklace OR
B) the player had the metaknowledge but the character doesn't, and the player doesn't want to act on that knowledge, knowing how the character would act with any other necklace is to sell it

once the necklace was sold, the wheat + pumpkins were bought along with the cart and mules because our player

A) did not have metaknowledge on when they would get warped/what would come with them OR
B) the player had the metaknowledge but the character doesn't, and the player doesn't want to act on that knowledge, so they bought the "non plot stuff" the character would have bought any other time

Then, while the characters were actively guarding and watching the stuff, it was whisked away.

Which is why it seems, as an outsider, either the GM is needlessly punishing the players for acting in character, or punishing them for not knowing things they had no way of knowing outside of reading the module/reviews.

[Jay R]

Guys? If the GM let them buy things and then immediately took them away that he GM was wrong. GM made them waste gold.

Gold is a limited resource for PCs, they could have used that gold to buy other things.

If the GM didn't want them to have pumpkins or a cart then the GM shouldn't have let them buy it in the first place.

If the GM didn't want them to sell the trinket, or to have a cart full of pumpkins, there were plenty of reasonable alternatives to what ended up happening.

In general a GM readily taking away things that you spend in-character resources on is a red flag.

That’s certainly one way to play, but neither the rules, not the history of the game, nor consensus among gamers imply that it is the only way to play, or even the best way to play.

Some of us are playing to simulate being in a fantasy world. And in a fantasy world, things happen that you cannot predict or control.

I agree that over the long haul, I should have the ability to improve my character’s fortune, but that isn’t the same as saying that nothing I do should ever hurt my character’s fortune in the short term. Things happen that I cannot control, because my PC is adventuring in a world, not a computer simulation of wish fulfillment.

Consider two driving simulations. You could program one to simulate driving in a real world, and if you accidentally turn into something you didn’t see, you end up crashed. You could simulate a different program to prevent crashes, by having the program eliminate problems that you couldn’t anticipate.

Neither of these programs is better than the other. They just appeal to different tastes, like different flavors of ice cream.

Consider the following three situations.

1. The PCs want to sell the vampire bane sword to get an item that is always useful. The DM knows that there is a vampire in the next village.
2. The PCs want to take the east road, towards the forest. The DM knows that the west road has a more lucrative adventure.
3. The PCs want to sell a noble’s gift to them in order to buy a cartful of wheat and pumpkins. The DM knows that there is a teleport spell coming that will only bring objects up to the characters carrying capacity.

In all three cases, the players are making a decision. It’s based on incomplete information, but it’s still their decision. Many of us prefer to play in a game where we can make our own decisions even when those decisions are wrong.

Of course, I have faith that I will make enough right decisions to offset the wrong ones. But if the DM prevents us from making wrong decisions, then we aren’t really making decisions at all. And making decisions is what playing the game is.

When I play poker, I often make decisions that are wrong, based on the cards in my opponents’ hands that I can’t see. That’s what playing the game is. I don’t want some DM or computer to change those cards to make my decisions right. That wouldn’t be playing poker

I want to make my own decisions, even when those decisions are wrong, based on information I don’t have.

You don’t want to play that way. And there’s nothing wrong with that.

But there’s nothing wrong with playing my way, either.

[KorvinStarmast]

A few thoughts:

First, I'd trust your instincts that this isn't worth the trouble, because I don't think it is. {snip}
You did the right thing posting here, and I think you can safely let this go and just enjoy what's to come in Barovia. Good luck to you and your party!

For certain values of the term 'enjoy' ...

I mean I totally get why the players are annoyed - the situation changes from "we're outsmarting the GM by turning this flavor keepsake into cash money" into "well ****, we played ourselves" and that's a big downgrade. But in this case I think the view to take is "you can't win them all".

That's a healthy approach, good recommendation.

How ridiculously cash-poor (and yet cash-requiring) campaigns are people playing that 100 gp is a big deal, precious character resources without which you might as well give up?

In CoS, gold doesn't have the purchasing power in Barovia that it does elsewhere. (Module design issue). Losing 100 GP at low level is a significant downer.

Its literally the world against 4-6 people, the game already isn't fair. And I don't just mean in the sense that that's the premise of the module.

But it for sure is a premise embedded in the module.

The players and by extension the characters sold a necklace they got as a reward and they had no attachment to.

Role playing moment here: why is there no attachment to a reward offered for a task achieved? Your post highlights something I've noticed: there's a 'materialist' approach I have seem some players use in D&D that devalues stuff like "X gave us Y" - which in my groups is usually internalized as a connection to X. A few of my players are very mechanistic: how much GP can I get for this is a reaction that I have seen ... and it often feels like a "push button get banana" as a mind set.

I'm not familiar with Curse of Strahd. I haven't played it so I'm talking from entirely an outsider's point of view and it simply looks like a GM punishing a player for no valid reason.

I guess that for the modern player they may need a sign outside the first gate that says "Welcome to the Suck" to get the idea that Barovia is 'not quite right' in a lot of ways.

Then, while the characters were actively guarding and watching the stuff, it was whisked away.

That's for sure annoying. But in the case of Barovia, our party had the entire caravan they were guarding 'whisked away' when we went inside a building to do some stuff .... it's a Barovia thing. (Not in Kurt's game, a previous one)

[Psyren]

I view this as kind of a trust issue. Yeah you might lose a cart (and... pumpkins/wheat) in the short term, but that's not the same as saying the DM is taking something from you without recompense. 5e doesn't have Wealth By Level, but that doesn't mean there's no way for you to be made whole in some way. Including (eventually) a brand new cart laden with stuff.

In other words, take a breath and see where it goes.

Also, if you don't mind me saying so, you got robbed in the initial purchase anyway. A cart is 15gp and 2 mules are 16gp (31 total), so unless you were in the desert I'm not seeing how pumpkins and wheat made up the other 69gp.

[Dr.Samurai]

Because the pumpkins are largely stand-in for player agency.

I don't think they can be though. Because the DM allowed them the agency to do something MUCH MORE impactful, which is sell the mcguffin. So the DM allowed them to sell this item, and then buy a bunch of useless stuff with it.

So you can't say the DM is denying agency just because they lost the stuff when they were transported to Barovia. Or, at least, you'd have to acknowledge that the DM also allowed a lot of agency, and then explain why one instance supersedes the other.

For certain values of the term 'enjoy' ...

Lol, fair point

In other words, take a breath and see where it goes.

Agreed.

[kyoryu]

It's not about the 100 gp of stuff.

It's about player investment and expectations. I mean, basically, you don't want to arbitrarily take things away from players that they've invested in. And it's not just things. Those purchases say, to me, "hey, I think that doing this kind of trading would be cool." Like, the player thought about that, and invested time in making decisions and plans.

And to have that simply taken away, with no real explanation, despite the best efforts of the player to guard them?

If players are upset, there's usually a reason, and 90% of the time that boils down to mismatched expectations. Once I played a DCC game where I sat and thought about starting gear - only to have the scenario start with having all of that gear stripped from us (and not returned). It annoyed me. I had invested nothing but time and thought in it, but if it didn't matter, why not just tell me it doesn't matter up front, since losing it wasn't even an in-game thing?

It's kinda the same here, and why I recommend against rug-pull scenarios. The rug-pull usually happens in the first session or so, and it almost never has the dramatic impact GMs want, and often will upset people. So, why do it? Just tell people up-front "the campaign is about this" and go with that.

And, should the PCs have known? Clearly they didn't, or they wouldn't have bothered investing in plans that would be ruined by getting randomly teleported away.

It's not about what happened. It's about communication and aligning expectations.

[Tanarii]

I do think that to some degree player agency was retroactively negated by the DM.

But it's the start of a Ravenloft campaign. That's part of signing up for a Ravenloft campaign, agreeing that your initial agency in regards to starting equipment may be negated. Knowing that when you get transported there, who knows what gear will come with you. You could end up buck naked.

Same as signing up for any campaign where you are told you will be captured and have to escape at the end of session N.

If the players were unaware how Ravenloft works, and the DM didn't tell them, then yeah there's a bit of culpability. But I'd still be irritated with the player that sold what, to me, smells like something you'll need later on.