D&D 5E Was I in the wrong?

[Ilbranteloth]

Assume what? I didn't assume anything in the post you quoted.

It seems you are assuming that the players aren't adult enough to tell the DM (one of their best friends) the truth.

While there very well may be people who, for various reasons, opt not to tell the DM what they really feel, the fact is that if they aren't willing to tell him that he can't be expected to know it, or act upon it.

When I read the OP, which I take at face value, I get the sense that the players are largely OK with what happened, and understand it, with the exception of one player. It's difficult to have a meaningful conversation if some of us think that the original poster is lying. That totally changes the scenario we're debating.

If the players don't feel comfortable letting their DM know when they've done something they don't like, there's an entirely different problem at play, and makes this discussion (at least for that group) largely moot.

I understand both sides of the debate, and while I don't always agree with all of the reasoning that has been presented (on either side), I totally agree that both positions are equally valid. I'm sure there are some here who disagree with that assessment and I'm fine with that.

What really matters in a situation like this is what the people at the table think. While we have a general sense of how they feel, we don't know what their general table rules are. If there's a disagreement at our table, we'll discuss it briefly, make a decision and move on. We can always revisit it later. The decision is usually by simple majority if a vote is necessary at all.

In this case, if I were a player, and the DM pointed out that:
#1) it was presented as a set

#2) we said we'd bundle it together as a set

#3) we've always considered a "suit of armor" meaning plate, aka full plate, includes gauntlets, helmet, etc. As it states in the rules, unless otherwise specified. That is, if the players don't want to sell the gauntlets with the suit, they would have to say so. Just like the DM would have to tell them if the suit they were purchasing was lacking gauntlets. (I should note that gauntlets and helmets actually have benefits in our house rules, so they are generally more important than they would be RAW)

#4) we tried to remove the ring and found it would not easily be removed

#5) we never mentioned, at any point, that we were separating the gauntlets (and thus the ring) from the suit of armor, nor making further attempts to remove the ring from the armor

#6) we never specified to sell the armor without the gauntlets, which have already been acknowledged as a part of a "suit of armor"

#7) based on #1-7, that while the DM may have taken advantage of the situation, it was a reasonable assumption on the DM's part, and thus the scenario and results are reasonable

As such, we'd let it go. We'd be more careful about how we went about things perhaps, I'm sure that would include being excessively specific in a joking manner for a while, but the bottom line is that we wouldn't really get hung up on it.

Similar situations have occurred a number of times where a player has asked something along the lines of "I forgot to tell you that I did 'x', can we assume I remembered to do it?" When that has occurred, it's usually the players who chime in and ask questions and it often ends in the player deciding that, no, they didn't do it.

This has included forgetting to pick up treasure, and occasionally something important enough that they would go back for it. Sometimes we just decide that they would logically have done that, and we don't have to worry about declaring everything we do. For example, we've made the assumption up front that as long as there is a reasonable amount of time to recover from a combat that archers are collecting any unbroken arrows they can.

So at my table, I don't think he did anything wrong. Other tables will have other opinions simply because there are different people involved. That's OK.

Ilbranteloth

 

[Maxperson]

Assume what? I didn't assume anything in the post you quoted.

Reading comprehension fail. I didn't say you assumed anything. I said there was no reason to assume what you posited as a possibility. The DM has stated what his players felt and said they were good with it. That's what we have to go on and going with anything else is assuming that thing.

 

[Maxperson]

Actually, the blacksmith asked, "Are you looking to sell the whole thing?"

Here is what was said.

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).

they told me that they would bundle the full set up completely and carry it as is.

from the post with the appraise check

(I make sure to remind him that the gauntlets and the ring are included with the bundle).

The "whole thing" was the set with the gauntlets and ring, just as the players bundled it, and it seems that the DM already played memory for the party once. The party blew it not once, but twice by forgetting that the gauntlets and ring were a part of the set. Jeeze. I didn't realize the players messed up that badly. The DM did a fine job.

I find the set argument here you're attempting to give unconvincing, and not just because it doesn't actually line up with what the blacksmith said. The reason is sets are not things, they are definitions. I can define any two discrete items into a set, or out of a set. To make matters worse, what gamers call 'plate armor' for convenience is actually multiple discrete items, fitting what most would call a set. It can be murky language if not clearly defined. It also makes the blacksmith's question generally unrevealing, and not the tip off the DM hoped for. Fun with ambiguity!

What's unconvincing is your argument that it wasn't all a set and/or that the players were unaware that the gauntlets and ring were a part of that set.

Oh, by the by, how does he do well in the appraise check and not only be denied sensory input, but the actual answer? The DM didn't tell him it's worth far more than the blacksmith is offering, did he? Can you explain that without equivocation?

It wasn't worth far more than the blacksmith offered. An appraise check would reveal a damaged set of full plate, complete with gauntlets and fused ring which devalues the ring considerably.

 

[Pandaemoni]

I find the set argument here you're attempting to give unconvincing, and not just because it doesn't actually line up with what the blacksmith said. The reason is sets are not things, they are definitions. I can define any two discrete items into a set, or out of a set. To make matters worse, what gamers call 'plate armor' for convenience is actually multiple discrete items, fitting what most would call a set. It can be murky language if not clearly defined. It also makes the blacksmith's question generally unrevealing, and not the tip off the DM hoped for.

There is clearly a semantic element to the outrage or lack thereof. I know that if my character buys a "set of plate armor" I expect that to include gauntlets. If my DM later tells me that I lack gauntlets because I bought that "set" I never separately specified that I also wanted gauntlets, then I would feel the DM was purposefully trying to screw with me unfairly. That said, when the blacksmith said "set" he (very understandably) meant it to include the gauntlets. When the ranger heard "set" he may not have thought it included a pair of gauntlets (or he may have not thought about what a "set" includes one way or another until later on).

I have seen that exact sort of problem of differing semantics happen all the time in real life. It's striking how often two sides come away with ten page "term sheet" thinking they basically have agreed to a deal and then when the actual contract is written it takes months of fighting over terms because they only thought they agreed on them, but actually both sides understood the same words materially differently.

Because in most contexts I think most players understand a "set" of plate armor to mean a complete set including all the individual pieces in a standard suit plate armor, which would include gauntlets, I find it hard to say that the blacksmith's use of the word "set" was in any way bizarre in this case. If the PC had though about the language the PC *might* have thought that word "set" means "this particular set of plate armor I want to sell, which does not include gauntlets."

I have seen real world cases that turned on just that kind of issue, where some judges would have said the blacksmith wins, and some would have said the ranger wins. The real difficulty here is that I am sure he DM imagined that the ranger was SHOWING the blacksmith a full set, gauntlets included, whereas I imagine that the PC though he was showing an incomplete set, without any gauntlets. That's an inherent issue with a theater of the mind game, where different people can imagine the same situation differently.

I have a strong suspicion that IRL a judge would say that if the gauntlets were displayed when the deal was struck, the blacksmith wins and the gauntlets were legally sold to him, whereas if no gauntlets were on display when the deal was struck the ranger wins and the gauntlets belong to the party.

 

[Lejaun]

Same argument, and you keep leaving out the crucial part of what happened.

"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. They were not pleased...and some were not pleased with me for not telling them."

Aka the players did not intend to sell the ring and gauntlets with the armor. If they had, they never would have asked to have the ring and gauntlets checked. You're not getting around that point.

 

[Maxperson]

Same argument, and you keep leaving out the crucial part of what happened.

"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. They were not pleased...and some were not pleased with me for not telling them."

Aka the players did not intend to sell the ring and gauntlets with the armor. If they had, they never would have asked to have the ring and gauntlets checked. You're not getting around that point.

Yes, I know that the players screwed up. They forgot TWICE that they bundled the armor, gauntlets and ring as a set. That's on them.

 

[FrogReaver]

Here is what was said.





from the post with the appraise check



The "whole thing" was the set with the gauntlets and ring, just as the players bundled it, and it seems that the DM already played memory for the party once. The party blew it not once, but twice by forgetting that the gauntlets and ring were a part of the set. Jeeze. I didn't realize the players messed up that badly. The DM did a fine job.



What's unconvincing is your argument that it wasn't all a set and/or that the players were unaware that the gauntlets and ring were a part of that set.



It wasn't worth far more than the blacksmith offered. An appraise check would reveal a damaged set of full plate, complete with gauntlets and fused ring which devalues the ring considerably.

It was never said in the appraisal that the ring and gauntlets were included as you claimed above. In fact it was never stated anywhere other than maybe when the players bundled them.

 

[Lejaun]

Yes, I know that the players screwed up. They forgot TWICE that they bundled the armor, gauntlets and ring as a set. That's on them.

Strange that others get banned from this thread, but you are allowed to keep trolling.

The players clearly never intended to sell the ring and gauntlet. If they had, they would have never asked to have the items appraised. Troll it, spin it, twist it however you want. It still comes back to the players never intending to sell the ring and gauntlet and being unhappy that they DM assumed and ruled they did.

 

[Pandaemoni]

Strange that others get banned from this thread, but you are allowed to keep trolling.

The players clearly never intended to sell the ring and gauntlet. If they had, they would have never asked to have the items appraised. Troll it, spin it, twist it however you want. It still comes back to the players never intending to sell the ring and gauntlet and being unhappy that they DM assumed and ruled they did.

It is true that the each player would have preferred not to sell the full set of armor. The ranger agreed to a deal to sell the "set." It doesn't really matter, I think, what the other players intended at that moment. Those characters were not present for the sale. The irrelevance (to me, that is) is only that the general intent of the players helps to inform what the ranger's intent might have been.

From there, I accept that the transfer probably didn't intend to sell a full set of armor, but only part of a set. That is not the end of the matter though.

First, an anecdote: I didn't intend to leave my passport on a subway in London when I was 17 years old, but it happened. I was inattentive. I set it down on the seat next to me while I fiddled with some packages and got distracted. I didn't notice it when I got up--too rushed or too overtired, I guess. It happens, despite what we intend, in real life and so it can also happen in game. It would have been nice if whoever found it had attempted to return it, but it would have been a shock if God had chimed in to warn me. Is God a bad DM? Kidding.

The big difference here is that both the DM and player likely had different mental images of the sale. In the DM's imagination, the players never physically separated the be-ringed gauntlets from the rest of the armor and so when the armor was hauled out for sale by the ranger, the DM assumed they were still with the other pieces of the set. OTOH, the ranger never wanted to sell the gauntlets and probably imagined he was selling an incomplete set of armor.

I am not certain, and don't believe, that this is a case where the DM realized that the player had a different understanding of what the words "set of armor" meant. I believe he thought the ranger was being careless because the blacksmith was buying "the [full] set" and that the ranger was being foolishly inattentive in not specifying that the sale would not include the (in the DM's mind, clearly present) magic gauntlets and related ring. In other words, I think the DM imagined it was in a sense "obvious" the gauntlets were present, and it didn't occur to the DM that the ranger imagined the Gauntlets were never even shown to the blacksmith.

The ranger simultaneously made the same mistake about the DM's imaginings. He likely assumed the gauntlets were still in a bag and that "the [partial] set" of armor was all that he and the blacksmith were looking at when the price was set. From his perspective, it might have seemed odd that the blacksmith was deducting from the sale price for wear and tear, but that he never asked for a deduction based on the set being incomplete. If that had occurred to the player, then I bet the player would have not mentioned it, much as the DM had the blacksmith hide his intent to include the ring in the deal the one price for entire set.

This is why I don't see the DM's intent as malicious. In his mind, the scene looked like this: The ranger left his passport on the subway and didn't notice it when he got up to exit the train. In the ranger's mind, he left his passport safely at the hotel with the party, and so he couldn't have possibly have left it the train. Neither thought to specify the whereabouts of the passport in advance and both had contradictory images of the scene in mind as it unfolded. That kind of contradiction happens all the time in theater of the mind games (and it's why battlemats and miniatures made a resurgence in 3e, in my opinion) and it is very difficult to "guess" at whether or not you and any other player are picturing the scene the same way.

The DM might have called for a check to see if the ranger did in fact notice the (from the DM's perspective) error, but I don't think we should throw too much shade over the fact that the DM did not. Obviously many here disagree (to the point of some wanting the DM to be forced to step down as a punishment, stating that apologies should be required, and wanting assurances that this will never happen again, all based on the--I believe incorrect--assumption that the DM was being intentionally malicious to punish his players for their out of game conduct). But lighten up, "never againers"! Either way this is not a big deal. So far as we know people here are angrier about this than the players involved. Vitriol on either side won't change minds, won't change future play styles, and won't accomplish anything but making us all feel more justified in our respective indignations.

And that is probably why we do it. We enjoy the high of not only feeling that we are "right" but are righteous in our fury. Since the fury accomplishes absolutely nothing else, I hope there is at least that much of a benefit. The internet as a tool for rational discourse is overrated, but as an engine of righteous indignation, it has truly become transcendent. One might be forgiven for passionate politics (although, even there, I think the internet has taken us into a new and terrifying age of often pointless rage), but now it extents into wrath over the belief that someone playing a game "wrong" or over the belief that people who think he is playing the game "wrong" are "wrong." That's something to ponder.

 

[Saeviomagy]

This is why I don't see the DM's intent as malicious. In his mind, the scene looked like this: The ranger left his passport on the subway and didn't notice it when he got up to exit the train. In the ranger's mind, he left his passport safely at the hotel with the party, and so he couldn't have possibly have left it the train.

Except the ranger explicitly made a check that would have required him to look directly at the passport as he was getting off the train. The example is closer to him handing his passport to a border guard, and immediately after that finding that all the pages were missing from it when he gave it to the guard...