D&D 5E Was I in the wrong?

[AaronOfBarbaria]

What people here tend to forget is that the ranger didn't even remember about the ring and gauntlets until the whole party was back together and they ask about them.

And what you seem to forget is all the times that exact detail has been shown to be not nearly as relevant as you imply it is.

 

[FrogReaver]

What people here tend to forget is that the ranger didn't even remember about the ring and gauntlets until the whole party was back together and they ask about them.

Actually we don't know that. It was never stated one way or the other.

 

[Yardiff]

How is it not relevant? The person who volunteered to do the selling and identifying not remembering that he had some items not relevant?

 

[Yardiff]

Actually we don't know that. It was never stated one way or the other.

Go back and review the OPs post and you'll see.

 

[Yardiff]

"He then moved on to the magic shop (to check the swords) and then met up with the rest of the crew. 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."

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?478623-Was-I-in-the-wrong#ixzz42X9pbCgw

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

How is it not relevant? The person who volunteered to do the selling and identifying not remembering that he had some items not relevant?

It is relevant, just not to the side of the discussion you've put yourself on (that of excusing the DM's behavior).

The only relevance of the player not remembering the items being in his character's possession is that it proves the player entirely incapable of communicating his character's intent to sell those items.

And why it is that I declare that memory as irrelevant to the situation at hand is because the character was not given any chance to remember, to see the items in front of him, to feel them in his hands while laying them out to sell to the smith, or to realize their value when the player called for the character to evaluate if what the smith was offering was fair pay for the items being sold.

 

[Yardiff]

I haven't excluded the GM behavior, I'm just not focusing on it as much as you because I personally didn't find it as wrong as you obviously do. And to be clear I'm rarely a GM so I see things mostly from the player side of things. To me what was described didn't come off as a 'gotcha' that a lot of people here are saying. Most of his players, at one point or another during the gaming session, wasn't paying enough attention to what was going on and that came back to bit them.

Personally I'd have allowed a passive insight against the merchant.

 

[Satyrn]

I'm rarely a GM

This is interesting. I often DM.

What the OP did is something I think I'd regret immediately if I had been in his shoes. It just doesn't sound like there was any fun to be had by the players, and I'd be concerned that I had just "trained" them towards being pedantic accountants.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

And to be clear I'm rarely a GM so I see things mostly from the player side of things. To me what was described didn't come off as a 'gotcha' that a lot of people here are saying.

I find it hard to believe that a player would not feel "gotcha" had been done to them when their DM told them their character (who can see the items being sold) believes what they are being offered (a fair price for a suit of armor, full stop) is actually a fair price for what is being offered for sale (a suit of armor and, at the very least, an additional item in the form of a ring - which, again, the character can actually see).

 

[Yardiff]

Again your assuming that the ranger did things the EXACT way you'd do things. For all you know he just plop the sack containing the items on the table then ask the GM for an int check on what adamantine armor should cost. Nothing in that scene demanded that the ranger actually pick through the stuff to evaluate it for price.