D&D 5E Was I in the wrong?

[Lejaun]

Look back to my first response. As someone who, unfortunately, often deals with people who will talk for three hours to give me five minutes of useful information, conflation of issues is a problem.

The issues you keep keying in on (the Blacksmith scenario) is not the problem in the OP. It's Mr. Cellphone. Try to untangle what the OP was about.

1. Mr. Cellphone is an issue.

2. Here's this thing that happened. In the end, the players were okay with it, and will probably have a heist.

3. The one person who isn't okay with it is Mr. Cellphone.

What's going on here? The DM is frustrated because the one person who has the least involvement with the group is causing the most problems to the DM. So, you have a scenario when a different player (Mr. Ranger) makes an error. This is something that can be corrected. But Mr. Cellphone, who doesn't get involved in social situations (like dealing with the blacksmith) and doesn't pay attention to things (look, a whole set of armor includes gauntlets with a ring attached) is the one person who is giving the DM grief about all of this.

This has nothing to do with the Blacksmith. It has everything to do with unaddressed resentment toward Mr. Cellphone which is rising to the surface because (in the DM's mind) he is not only the one person causing the problem in this scenario, he should be the last person to complain.

Make more sense now?

Of course, no one has noticed that, since by the third page, we immediately went into who was tricking who, player agency, and DM empowerment. See also, Loki's Law.

1. Absolutely. It should have been an issue from the beginning and discussed the second it was happening in game. "Hey man, we're playing D&D right now. Do you mind putting down the phone while we play?"
2. The players O.K. with it are also the players that are paying attention to the game. They seem to get the sense that the DM has already made his stance and it isn't going to change. They are in the acceptance stage. Just because you accept something doesn't mean you agree with it.
3. Of course he's not. He can't even be bothered to put down the phone. I can't get enough D&D, but work and family and such limit how much I'd like to play. When I do play, I put my phone on silent and don't look at it until a session is over.

The original post seems to clearly say that all of the players were unhappy with how this turned out. If they had intended things to happen as they did, their want for the ring and gauntlets would have never came up. It would be no different than if they were selling a painting or urn for gold. They would never know that the items had value above what they were paid. The fact that they do get upset initially indicates that they had interest in the items and had no intention of selling the items before finding their true worth.

Good on the players who realize this can just be turned into a new adventure and are moving on, but what if they hadn't gotten over it?

 

[CAFRedblade]

A little bit of both. Players need to pay more attention, and not just to what their characters are doing, but what other characters are doing.

Perhaps a second hint of some kind could have been made by the GM to remind the players that the extra items were still with the armour set.
While it is the GM who tries to create fun and interesting interactions, both within and without combat, it's not his job to coddle the players.
When I think the players may do something foolish, I query them.. "Are you sure????" (although I toss the odd one of those to mess with them as well)

If they make mistakes due to inattentiveness, there will be consequences. Hopefully, the solutions that arise will lead to fun and interesting gameplay.

Perhaps the Blacksmith is willing to sell the items back to the PCs. He bought the set as is, and was looking to make a tidy profit. But is willing to parcel
out the items the PCs want back, at a small profit.

Or as listed, they try to steal it back. The GM should take 5 here and carefully lay out the Blacksmith's shop.
If the PC's get sloppy in their attempt to break in, that's a learning lesson.
Consequences of getting caught, maybe jail, maybe ruined reputation in town.

But it all comes down to the group's playstyle (including the GM) in how to handle this, I know what i'd do
and how to handle it for my players, but I can't really say what'd be best for yours.

 

[DMCF]

I'm of the opinion that you did just fine. As the DM who spends time creating details it is perfectly acceptable to entertain the fact that PCs will/should pay attention in order to get the most fulfilling experience for everyone. How fulfilling has this experience been for you? You crafted that set of armor. You allowed them to collect it. After all that effort are you really OK with letting it fade into oblivion over a minor miss?

They screwed up. OK. The DM is not a surrogate parent. Usually the DM is their friend. This is also the DM's creation. Many would agree the DM has more skin in the game than the players do.

So how does the DM allow players to recover from screwing up, avoid sounding like someone's dad, be friendly with loot and bask in glory when players recount the amazing times they had running through the DM's adventure wearing the loot the DM provided?

Answer: Take into account or interject new morality into the story.

Players screw up for numerous reasons. Each time they do, whether it is hubris, greed, inattention etc. the DM has an opportunity for a glorious adventure hook that will stand the test of time in player's minds. A DM exploiting a player made situation requires minimal effort because the DM doesn't need to establish the conflict e.g., someone died. loot was missed, love was lost, etc. because the player did it for them!

If they player wishes redemption e.g., rez, loot, love etc. they now must work harder for it. There doesn't need to be more reward than initially offered for two reasons. A) Redemption/Salvation is a tale-telling reward. B) Time.

We're all familiar with tales of redemption so I'll skip expounding on its' benefits. What about time? Time is limited. We live a limited amount of time and within this precious time we have even less to game. If there is one thing the DM and players can all agree on, it's that we are feeling the effects of time. It may be distorted in-game but our real-life limitations consistently translate into gaming. To put it succinctly: We want more loot, more power, to save our love as fast as possible.

When players screw up you can always rely on time. No matter the reward, the time to exalt in triumph just took that much longer. For DMs time is our friend. Time allows us to interject lessons of morality without taking anything from the players. Time allows us to interject these lessons by providing more content, more emotion and a more personal experience crafted for, around, and by the players.

TLR
The players had the set. They lost it. The set is still there. It's going to take more time to get it. A heist is lame in most DM's eyes and can go against the story or the group's primary objective.

Here's a couple of adventure hooks:

- PC goes back to the Smith. Smithy is on fire. "I'm ruined! I'm ruined! That damn tark! That son of a gibberling!". He turns upon the PC, his eyes ablaze "You want your gauntlet back? Fine! It'll ruin me, but I swear you get _______ for me and get me back my ________ and it's yours! Make him pay...make him pay dearly".

- PC's encounter a commotion out of the smithy. They approach. They find the smith prone over an anvil. The smith still has a hammer in one hand, his eyes wide, mouth agape and the back of his skull summarily smashed in. The forge coals glimmer but will soon die out. This couldn't have happened more than a few hours ago. The sun barely crests the hills to the east. The gauntlet and the ring are nowhere to be seen.

I bet if you try this and explain that this is a chance to redeem the inattentiveness of being "Mr. Cellphone" he'll shut that right off. My job can be pretty rough too. If the plant is down the plant is down. People need to know when they can play and when they can't.

 

[Shasarak]

How do you want them to respond?
Player talks to NPC one, asks them to appraise item.
NPC: It's worth this much.
Player: I don't believe this guy.
Player talks to NPC two, asks them to appraise item.
NPC: It's worth this much.
Player: I don't believe this guy.

That kind of distrust doesn't seem like a fun game to be in to me. I'd rather be out there solving quests and riddles and adventuring than be paranoid about how the DM and his NPC's are trying to trick me over the value of items and how I must now triple check every single thing. The DM in this case, however, is developing players that will be paranoid and the game will be far more about appraising than it should be.

OK, so the players do not want to check the items themselves, they dont want to get a second opinion when selling their stuff and they get surprised when the one guy they see rips them off.

As I said, sounds like basic player error to me.

 

[FrogReaver]

Except the players didn't screw up. The dm did...

Player had no knowledge at the time of the sell that ring and gauntlet was included. Dm even admits it with justifying why the blacksmith didn't mention the ring. In hopes not to draw attention to it. The dm admits it later when he mentions the other players were upset that they didn't know the ring and gauntlet were sold.

I'm of the opinion that you did just fine. As the DM who spends time creating details it is perfectly acceptable to entertain the fact that PCs will/should pay attention in order to get the most fulfilling experience for everyone. How fulfilling has this experience been for you? You crafted that set of armor. You allowed them to collect it. After all that effort are you really OK with letting it fade into oblivion over a minor miss?

They screwed up. OK. The DM is not a surrogate parent. Usually the DM is their friend. This is also the DM's creation. Many would agree the DM has more skin in the game than the players do.

So how does the DM allow players to recover from screwing up, avoid sounding like someone's dad, be friendly with loot and bask in glory when players recount the amazing times they had running through the DM's adventure wearing the loot the DM provided?

Answer: Take into account or interject new morality into the story.

Players screw up for numerous reasons. Each time they do, whether it is hubris, greed, inattention etc. the DM has an opportunity for a glorious adventure hook that will stand the test of time in player's minds. A DM exploiting a player made situation requires minimal effort because the DM doesn't need to establish the conflict e.g., someone died. loot was missed, love was lost, etc. because the player did it for them!

If they player wishes redemption e.g., rez, loot, love etc. they now must work harder for it. There doesn't need to be more reward than initially offered for two reasons. A) Redemption/Salvation is a tale-telling reward. B) Time.

We're all familiar with tales of redemption so I'll skip expounding on its' benefits. What about time? Time is limited. We live a limited amount of time and within this precious time we have even less to game. If there is one thing the DM and players can all agree on, it's that we are feeling the effects of time. It may be distorted in-game but our real-life limitations consistently translate into gaming. To put it succinctly: We want more loot, more power, to save our love as fast as possible.

When players screw up you can always rely on time. No matter the reward, the time to exalt in triumph just took that much longer. For DMs time is our friend. Time allows us to interject lessons of morality without taking anything from the players. Time allows us to interject these lessons by providing more content, more emotion and a more personal experience crafted for, around, and by the players.

TLR
The players had the set. They lost it. The set is still there. It's going to take more time to get it. A heist is lame in most DM's eyes and can go against the story or the group's primary objective.

Here's a couple of adventure hooks:

- PC goes back to the Smith. Smithy is on fire. "I'm ruined! I'm ruined! That damn tark! That son of a gibberling!". He turns upon the PC, his eyes ablaze "You want your gauntlet back? Fine! It'll ruin me, but I swear you get _______ for me and get me back my ________ and it's yours! Make him pay...make him pay dearly".

- PC's encounter a commotion out of the smithy. They approach. They find the smith prone over an anvil. The smith still has a hammer in one hand, his eyes wide, mouth agape and the back of his skull summarily smashed in. The forge coals glimmer but will soon die out. This couldn't have happened more than a few hours ago. The sun barely crests the hills to the east. The gauntlet and the ring are nowhere to be seen.

I bet if you try this and explain that this is a chance to redeem the inattentiveness of being "Mr. Cellphone" he'll shut that right off. My job can be pretty rough too. If the plant is down the plant is down. People need to know when they can play and when they can't.

 

[steeldragons]

It's not the size of the device, but what you do with it that counts.


At our table, 75% of players use a tablet and/or phone for their character or references. But out-of-game behavior is frowned upon, unless there's a family emergency.

Do 75% of your players lack pencils and sheets of paper? Write out a character sheet. PHBs at the table for references.

There is no reason at all anyone need devices at the table to reference anything. What you do/how you keep records away from the table is totally up to you. But no electronic device needs to be at a table...and "it's how I keep track of my character" is certainly not a legitimate justification when people have been (amazingly, somehow) playing the game without computer assistance for 30+ years.

Obviously people with kids or family situations/emergencies will check [who is calling] when their phones ring to see if anything is wrong. That is no excuse for devices being OUT at the a table. But "I need it for my character" is a nonstarter, for the obvious and simple fact that..."No, you don't. Write it down."

I am well aware that other people's MMV.

 

[Faenor]

OP is textbook passive aggressive. Actually, the player is textbook passive aggressive too.

Maybe that's been said. I didn't have time to read all the comments.

 

[FrogReaver]

They weren't ripped off. They didn't even know they sold the ring our gauntlets. If they were ripped off they would have known they sold ring and gauntlets and later found out they were much more valuable. This is different because they didn't even know those items weren't in their possession any longer.

OK, so the players do not want to check the items themselves, they dont want to get a second opinion when selling their stuff and they get surprised when the one guy they see rips them off.

As I said, sounds like basic player error to me.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

An adamantine full plate set, gauntlets of ogre strength, mithral longsword, a longsword of wounding, a ring of mindshielding a masterwork long bow and one arrow of elf slaying. I made sure to note that the gauntlets were made to look like part of the full set though the iconography seemed different. I also mentioned that the ring was placed on the gauntlet in such a way, that it was stuck there (think Sauron's armor with the ring).
and they told me that they would bundle the full set up completely and carry it as is. Once they arrived to town, three members of the group went to the temple about their mission while the ranger went to the blacksmith and magic shop to see what they could find about the gear and their prices.
The ranger went to the blacksmith first and presented the adamantine armor set. The player had completely forgotten that the gauntlets of ogre strength and the ring were placed with the armor as part of the set (or he just wasn't paying attention when the barbarian told me he'd put it all together for later). The armorsmith checked it over and when he noticed the ring he casually asked if the whole thing was for sale, making sure not to mention the ring (he didn't even know the gauntlets were magical). The ranger absentmindedly said yes and sold it for a very fair price (for an adamantine armor), not realizing he was giving the gauntlets and ring away as well.
It was then, when they wanted to check the ring and gauntlets that I reminded them that it was all in the set, that the ranger had sold.

This would have been just fine - in 1979. Back in the day, we had very few mechanics to go on, and it was prettymuch standard practice to determine if a PC 'noticed' something by describing it very casually and seeing of the player asked for more detail. Now we have Investigation, Perception, and the like, so a PC's ability to notice something is quantified. "Hey, there's a ring on this gauntlet," for instance, make a check to see if the PC is paying attention, or have the NPC trying to pull a fast one check Deception vs Insight.

But, we're also playing 5e, where the DM can just decide whether such an attempt succeeds or fails, without calling for a check.

So, actually, I'm going to break with the consensus and say, no, you're not strictly in the wrong. You decided that the ranger didn't notice the ring that he & his buddies had intended to investigate later, and that's within your rights as the DM. Now, maybe you decided that for the 'wrong reasons' - because a player had been annoying you or something - that might call for a little introspection.