Am I being salty about nothing?

[Kvess]

My rule at my table is players don’t read the module. And if you did happen to read the module years ago before deciding that you wanted to play in the adventure: no, you didn’t. You have no memory of what you read and will not use that knowledge to your advantage or to argue with the DM. Nothing will annoy me more than a player quoting text that they shouldn’t have seen.

YMMV at your table, but I don’t think this is an uncommon requirement.

[Mastikator]

There's no milage here at all. We're not players at this game, we're critiquing decisions from our ivory towers.

And I'm doing that from the doylist perspective. Strahd isn't real, he has no control over anything, the DM is real and does and to me the DM made a bad call here (because they made it too late and should have had to cope with the pumpkin shaped consequences of their previous calls).

You're taking it for granted that the DM is in the wrong. It's entirely possible to view the pumpkin tycoon thing as a disruptive course of action and the DM was not only right in squashing it immediately, but merciful for not reminding them that playing merchant is in fact not what anyone signed up for.

The DM made a good call here. It's not the fact that the players have any right to be salty, it's the DM who should be salty for putting in so much money, time and energy into running a game only to have it blatantly disrespected by a player trying to run pumpkin merchant.

[GloatingSwine]

You're taking it for granted that the DM is in the wrong. It's entirely possible to view the pumpkin tycoon thing as a disruptive course of action and the DM was not only right in squashing it immediately, but merciful for not reminding them that playing merchant is in fact not what anyone signed up for.

The DM made a good call here. It's not the fact that the players have any right to be salty, it's the DM who should be salty for putting in so much money, time and energy into running a game only to have it blatantly disrespected by a player trying to run pumpkin merchant.

I'm saying the DM didn't squash it quickly *enough*. If the DM doesn't want the player to have pumpkins don't sell them any! The DM decides what's in the world for them to buy, or who is in the world for them to sell a plot coupon to. They had two different opportunities to nip this in the bud before it got this far and took neither. *That* is what makes it a bad call to yoink the goods now.

If the necklace had been impossible to sell, that's a good call. If there just wasn't a cartload of produce available to buy and they can't convert the money into perishable goods and have to wait to spend it later that's *also* a good call. Waiting until there's already a cartload of pumpkins and *then* deciding they don't like it and want it to be different, that's not.

Not having a conversation between all the players about what game you were intending to play isn't "merciful" because the DM has no power to grant or withold mercy, it's just a way to fall into another mismatch later.

[Batcathat]

If the necklace had been impossible to sell, that's a good call.

Depends on the reason for it, I think. If it's because it makes sense for no one in the area to have enough cash (or pumpkins) to pay for it, then sure. If it's only because the GM wants to force them to keep it, it's not. Just as I'm fine with the pumpkins disappearing if there was a good in-universe reason for it, but not if it was just the GM wanting to get rid of the pumpkins.

[Dr.Samurai]

But remember the DM doesn't know at time of "sells necklace" that the players are going to buy a cart of pumpkins.

He allows them to sell a necklace. He allows them to peruse the market. He allows them to buy a cart. Oh, and now they want all those pumpkins he described as background setting. Well, he's allowed them to do everything up to this point so... sure, buy the pumpkins. Better that than the weird scenario where everything has been permitted up until now and then suddenly the DM says "No, you can't buy these pumpkins I described as being on display for sale...".

But really the main point is that in all the things in life to get bent out of shape over, this isn't one of them. This can be easily let go.

[GloatingSwine]

Depends on the reason for it, I think. If it's because it makes sense for no one in the area to have enough cash (or pumpkins) to pay for it, then sure. If it's only because the GM wants to force them to keep it, it's not. Just as I'm fine with the pumpkins disappearing if there was a good in-universe reason for it, but not if it was just the GM wanting to get rid of the pumpkins.

The reason for it will determine how well the players accept the idea they can't sell it. It was a personal item of a local noblewoman, a good explanation would be "the person you're trying to sell it to recognises who it came from and says nobody near here would risk buying it". The players can then think "okay we'll hold onto it and sell it when we've moved far enough away", and in this case "far enough away" is Barovia where everyone's poorer than the poorest dirt they ever met (or far more interested in what's in a neck than on it) and before they find someone to buy it whatever plot coupon reason it was given for has triggered anyway.

[kyoryu]

You're taking it for granted that the DM is in the wrong. It's entirely possible to view the pumpkin tycoon thing as a disruptive course of action and the DM was not only right in squashing it immediately, but merciful for not reminding them that playing merchant is in fact not what anyone signed up for.

The DM made a good call here. It's not the fact that the players have any right to be salty, it's the DM who should be salty for putting in so much money, time and energy into running a game only to have it blatantly disrespected by a player trying to run pumpkin merchant.

Nah, the GM may have been right in the large ("this isn't Pumpkin Tycoon") but I think they were wrong in how they handled it.

Ultimately, misalignment on game expectations is an out-of-game problem. What the characters did was reasonable in game. Slightly weird maybe, but certainly nothing wrong. If it violated basic expectations of the campaign ("we're adventurers, not pumpkin merchants") then it should be handled out of game. At the time would have been best, but at any point would have been fine - "Hey, guys, we're running D&D. I'm really not interested in running a game about being pumpkin merchants, so I'm not sure where you're going with this. Let's make sure we're on the same page."

Don't solve out-of-game problems in-game.

[Trafalgar]

Nah, the GM may have been right in the large ("this isn't Pumpkin Tycoon") but I think they were wrong in how they handled it.

Ultimately, misalignment on game expectations is an out-of-game problem. What the characters did was reasonable in game. Slightly weird maybe, but certainly nothing wrong. If it violated basic expectations of the campaign ("we're adventurers, not pumpkin merchants") then it should be handled out of game. At the time would have been best, but at any point would have been fine - "Hey, guys, we're running D&D. I'm really not interested in running a game about being pumpkin merchants, so I'm not sure where you're going with this. Let's make sure we're on the same page."

Don't solve out-of-game problems in-game.

I disagree. The players knew they were playing "Dungeons and Dragons" but decided to buy a bunch of pumpkins, something pretty much useless in game. I think the DM should have done something else to get rid of the pumpkins than just have them disappear. I would have let them bring the pumpkins with them to Barovia. But the PCs would discover that pumpkins are a common commodity in Barovia and they were unable to sell the pumpkins at a profit. Or, that the Barovian peasants interested in buying the pumpkins are dirt poor and can't afford to pay what the PCs are asking. I mean, Strahd doesn't have a use for pumpkins. Let the players choose between getting back 25 to 50 gp of the 100gp they spent or letting the pumpkins rot in the cart.

A player making a bad "in game" decision should have to deal with the consequences "in game".

[Pex]

If only the players bought cabbages instead of pumpkins then everyone would be right.

[Pauly]

You're taking it for granted that the DM is in the wrong. It's entirely possible to view the pumpkin tycoon thing as a disruptive course of action and the DM was not only right in squashing it immediately, but merciful for not reminding them that playing merchant is in fact not what anyone signed up for.
.

I see what you did there

[kyoryu]

I disagree. The players knew they were playing "Dungeons and Dragons" but decided to buy a bunch of pumpkins, something pretty much useless in game. I think the DM should have done something else to get rid of the pumpkins than just have them disappear. I would have let them bring the pumpkins with them to Barovia. But the PCs would discover that pumpkins are a common commodity in Barovia and they were unable to sell the pumpkins at a profit. Or, that the Barovian peasants interested in buying the pumpkins are dirt poor and can't afford to pay what the PCs are asking. I mean, Strahd doesn't have a use for pumpkins. Let the players choose between getting back 25 to 50 gp of the 100gp they spent or letting the pumpkins rot in the cart.

A player making a bad "in game" decision should have to deal with the consequences "in game".

"PLaying Dungeons & Dragons" is an out-of-game concept. The characters don't know that.

The pumpkins being useless is very definitely a table culture thing - at some tables, going into pumpkin selling is absolutely something that would be embraced by the table as a whole. So that difference in expectations is absolutely an out-of-character concept.

[Kvess]

That’s not an argument that I’d buy as a DM. The characters don’t understand the meta-concept of being in a Dungeons & Dragons game, but the players do — and players are responsible for their conduct at the table. If you build and play a character that isn’t a good fit for the tone and theme of the game, you, as a human being who is playing Dungeons & Dragons, know exactly what you are doing.

And at some tables that’s okay. I embrace players being a bit rowdy, going off on tangents, trying to interact with elements of the world that aren’t covered in the book, clashing with the adventure’s theme and tone — and I take it as a challenge to reconcile it all. But for some tables, it could really kill the vibe.

It’s always worth talking to your players, the real human beings at your table, about what sort of game you’re collectively interested in playing. You can get further by getting their buy-in above the table than by teleporting their characters to the top of a mountain, naked and without their equipment or pumpkins.

[KorvinStarmast]

It’s always worth talking to your players, the real human beings at your table, about what sort of game you’re collectively interested in playing. You can get further by getting their buy-in above the table than by teleporting their characters to the top of a mountain, naked and without their equipment or pumpkins.

If I may refer back to the OP and about being salty: whenever we got a pumpkin or two at Halloween for the kids to carve, my wife and I would keep the seeds, salt them, and roast them. They are an OK snack, and of late my wife makes me eat a couple of handfuls a week for her usual "it's healthy for you!" reasons.

If one is to be salty, apply the salt to the pumpkin seeds.

[Easy e]

If I may refer back to the OP and about being salty: whenever we got a pumpkin or two at Halloween for the kids to carve, my wife and I would keep the seeds, salt them, and roast them. They are an OK snack, and of late my wife makes me eat a couple of handfuls a week for her usual "it's healthy for you!" reasons.

If one is to be salty, apply the salt to the pumpkin seeds.

Indeed. Roasted pumpkin seeds rule!

[KorvinStarmast]

Indeed. Roasted pumpkin seeds rule!

When she's not watching I'll occasionally wash them down with beer.

[Mastikator]

"PLaying Dungeons & Dragons" is an out-of-game concept. The characters don't know that.

The pumpkins being useless is very definitely a table culture thing - at some tables, going into pumpkin selling is absolutely something that would be embraced by the table as a whole. So that difference in expectations is absolutely an out-of-character concept.

Unless all the player characters took the merchant background I'd say it's a silly move in-character. If I'm a heroic adventurer and I get my hands some gold then I'd rather spend it on heroic adventuring items, like rope and swords. The cart and horse was a smart move for sure, easier to haul more loot. But filling said cart with pumpkins? That's more of a lol-random-pumpkin-tychoon move. It's out of character, disruptive.

The DM should've whacked the players with the CoS book over the head. That was his only mistake, I'm willing to chalk it up to "mercy" and forgive the DM

[Kardwill]

I'll suggest that the Dark Powers can delegate that to any number of denizens of Barovia; they've got minions to handle their light work.

I just ran that campaign, and I can think of a number of creatures in Barovia that would be interested in those pumpkins for some sinister, theme-appropriate stuff

Spoiler: Campaign villains

Show

Old Morganthe would just LOVE to get some more stuff to put into her pies. And Baba lysaga would do some pretty halloween-themed scarecrows, especially since she is fond of plant-magic. Wouldn't the players be THRILLED with the idea of helping out those 2 nice old ladies? :)

[Sapphire Guard]

It's pumpkins and wheat. Stopping them from buying pumpkins just leads to the player buying something else, and if that is blocked as well, then at some point it turns into 'wait, no one is selling food at this food market'

Like every similar problem, it's hard to tell out of context, but If I was laying odds I would say that buying the cart of produce in the first place is intentionally being disruptive. In or out of character, that is a strange decision. It skews every encounter from then on, because they party now has to worry about who is guarding the cart and its very vulnerable produce, doubling as a 'the mists are not nice, you're going to have to take this seriously' wake up call.

[RedWarlock]

Yeah, I don't think it's fair to use the Thermian argument against the GM, ("Strahd isn't a real person, he can't make excuses!") but exempt the players from it ("The players' characters don't know they're in a game of D&D!") Everyone needs to be on board with the game being played at the table, and structure their fiction (player's character and GM's world) to support it, not fight it.

The trinket was totally a macguffin, but not of the magical world, but the high-society courtier's world. That trinket was meant to be a signifier of the Duchess's favor, given to the high-society character who should know better about what it means, to be used when the time was right. It was a physical token of social power and influence. 300gp was probably the pawnshop value of the materials, but the actual social influence could've been curried into so much more.

Court politics should really be mechanized and itemized into its own subgame, maybe that would help players understand it better. (Note to self, for my own homebrew...)

I also agree that the DM had no way to know the player was selling the trinket for pumpkins unless he was stating the whole transaction in one sentence and never announced his intentions beforehand. Plenty of players break their actions down into lesser, oblique steps without consulting the DM first on the whole end-goal. (Which is a shame, because that would be another area where players could direct their experience gain by creating their own quests more formally, and thus know the DM has bought in to that suggested plot-thread.)

[Satinavian]

The trinket was totally a macguffin, but not of the magical world, but the high-society courtier's world. That trinket was meant to be a signifier of the Duchess's favor, given to the high-society character who should know better about what it means, to be used when the time was right. It was a physical token of social power and influence. 300gp was probably the pawnshop value of the materials, but the actual social influence could've been curried into so much more.

Maybe, maybe not.

The group was about to leave the area to go into Strahds domain and we don't know whether the players expected to ever again be in an area where anyone even knows the duchess' name. And we don't know about the PCs plans or the DMs plans either.


It is certainly a boorish move to pawn the thing off and might be an insult if the duchess ever learns about it. But that does not automatically mean that the item was a MgGuffin or that the duchess or even her influence was ever expected to play a role again.