D&D 5E Was I in the wrong?

[Aura]

(stuff)

I'd avoid the use of anecdotes, at least those that don't map to all the issues in the blacksmith scene. In your passport case, I can agree things like that happen, and still assert I feel the DM made a mistake regarding his handling of the blacksmith scene. Note, I call it a mistake. I don't assert malice, call for a retcon, get worked up, or any of that. The point is to hopefully learn and avoid mistakes like that. As a DM, "don't let your preconceived notions of what happens next interfere with giving relevant information to the players," would be something worth learning.

 

[Aura]

Regarding the appraise attempt by the ranger on the armor:

I think that can be read a number of different ways as well. Again, we're limited by the wording presented in the post instead of actually being there.

Yes, granted. However, I think we can arrive at the most reasonable reading.

But if somebody is just asking "how much such a suit of armor would sell for" doesn't necessarily mean that they are required to look directly at the armor. Such a question can be asked and answered even if the item is not there. A friend could simply tell me that he saw a particular car for sale, and I could ask the same thing - meaning "based on my (your) experience, how much would such a car sell for?" In fact, because he made a check that succeeded so well, I might argue that it implied that he knew what the general value of a suit of adamantine armor was without even thinking about it, much less having to examine it closely.

Appraising items without taking in sensory information is simply a more error-prone way of doing it. There has to be some sensory information involved, whether you are relying on other's description, memory, etc. But, it's the same process, only with less direct and we know what effect that has on accuracy. And complications are much more difficult to deal with and the armor is damaged.

Again, to me there isn't really enough actual information (for me anyway) to judge whether in this specific instance the DM made a mistake or not. It's a summary, and we'll never know exactly what the player said, what the tone, body language was, etc.

Contextually, he makes the roll after getting a low bid on the explanation that the armor is damaged, which increases the need for critical evaluation. It is rather difficult to read the way you're offering in that context. If he'd asked the DM, while walking to the blacksmith, "Hey, about how much does an adamantine plate armor suit go for, anyway?", I might be inclined to agree with you.

And I'm going to agree with your contention we can do our best to assess the situation and talk about it.

I'm going to bring this part up, not in an attempt to argue you're wrong, but more about the problem of non-specific terms:

...Rightfully in my opinion, based on the game definition of "suit of armor" combined with what the players said/did before the encounter.

That's a big kinda sorta fuzzy area. Mechanically speaking, a suit of armor is the whole thing... gauntlets, helm, etc., as another poster has contended. Except... it's not when those items are discrete mechanical entities, such as magical items. Your suit of full plate includes gauntlets if you don't have magical gauntlets/gloves/whatever, and it doesn't if you have them. Where did the 'normal' gauntlets go? Does anyone keep track of that? Anyway, the point of this is to illustrate how we can get into vague terminology and strong mental images of what is going on, and taking advantage of ambiguity is not generally a good idea.

I view the encounter as being one that simulates, in part, those times where we do do something absentminded and make a mistake, as well as one where the NPC is attempting to deceive the character. Which is a difficult thing to simulate in a game precisely because if the DM mentioned the gauntlets during the encounter, he would have alerted the player to the fact that they might be making a mistake.

My view is also that it is a simulation. And you are correct in saying that if you mention the gauntlets during the encounter, the player will be alerted. Use game mechanics and common sense to work through the simulation and let the cards fall as they will. The reason I contend the DM made a mistake is for NOT doing that, in several ways. The player could reasonably be offered perception and/or insight rolls... neither came into play. The player then suggests and makes a good roll for appraise... but no relevant information is given. Meanwhile, the blacksmith succeeds wherever necessary, no roll mentioned.

While many of you would argue that the DM is required to do so, I disagree. It's an interesting encounter, and while I might have adjudicated it slightly differently mechanically, I don't see any fault in the DM either. More importantly, based on the description that the players are OK with it, I don't see any issue with it for this DM.

The problem with the interesting encounter concept is it's entirely subjective. I'd also like to offer that it tends to lead to a bit of blindness for the simulation aspect and other potentially interesting encounters as well. Could it be said the blacksmith tricking the ranger is interesting? Sure. Could it be said the ranger catching on at the last minute and stringing him along for a little amusement is interesting? Sure, why not? How about coming up with a clever way to turn the tables? Interesting enough? And, to the point, this is precisely the issue I think went on with the DM--he felt he saw an interesting conclusion, and he started running the scene in a way to strongly bias towards that conclusion while ignoring the simulation aspect and other potentially interesting conclusions.

I'm going to tail the end of one paragraph to the beginning of another here:

...That doesn't mean in either case, however, that the scenario is unreasonable, as I, and others, have pointed out situations where we have made errors of memory and recognizing, realizing what's in front of our face.

This is all within the spirit that the game (for us) is a simulation of the lives of the characters in a "real" world. Life is full of successes and failures, and those shape the lives of the characters.

Absolutely. I think there is a disconnect between the two camps in this issue. The successes and failures are important. I agree with that. But the view seems to be rather black and white, and I don't agree with either. Let me explain what I mean. Some posters give the feeling that if you argue the DM was incorrect in his handling of the situation, you don't think there should be consequences for actions. And some other posters give the feeling that if you argue there is a reasonable chance the ranger might lose possession of the items, it's DM trickery, gotcha and whatnot.

I offer this: Because the players made a mistake, there is a chance the guy selling the armor will lose possession of the ring and gauntlets. Depending on his actions, the chance can change, and the Int roll to evaluate the armor was a step in the right direction for the players. And there is also a baseline chance he's just going to notice the ring and gauntlets in terms of passive perception from handling them. Roll the dice, move your mice, live with the results.

Remember, people in the 'real' world are not always penalized for mistakes. Sometimes sensory queues remind allow me to notice my mistake and I'm not penalized. Sometime I suspect something is wrong and take a step to investigate and I'm not penalized. But sometimes neither works out and bad things happen.

I read, then shamelessly deleted the rest. I hope you don't mind, I'm just not against any of that. I just have my way of going about it.

 

[pemerton]

In the legal world, this interaction would most likely result in a voided contract (transaction). There is a miscommunication in the meeting of minds aspect of it, in that each side thinks what is being offered is different than the other does.

meeting of the minds
n. when two parties to an agreement (contract) both have the same understanding of the terms of the agreement. Such mutual comprehension is essential to a valid contract.

The legal situation is more complicated than this - apart from anything else, the mental elements to a contract (at least in common law systems) are generally constructed "objectively" from the evidence that surround the act of contracting - they are not "subjective" intentions (ie actual mental states).

To give a concrete example: if I promise to sell you my house including all fixtures, and I wrongly believe that X is not a fixture, then if I remove X before settlement, when you take possession and discover that X is missing you can proceed against me for breach of contract with some reasonable prospect of success.

The issue here isn't that the PC and the NPC had different beliefs concerning what was the subject matter of the sale. The issue is that the player and the GM - real people in the real world, not imaginary people in the imaginary world - had different beliefs concerning what it was that the PC presented to the NPC for sale.

I'm with those who think it doesn't make for good gaming to hold the players to a level of precision in action declaration that the GM is applying in this particular scenario; it breeds paranoia, bogs down play and leads to debates (as in this case). The more complex and verisimilitudinous the gameworld, the more this sort of playstyle will cause ruptures in immersion and disrupt the unfolding of events in play; it's not a coincidence that the "precision language" playstyle originated in the ultra-sparse gameworld of the dungeon.

In this scenario, even within the framework of the "precision language" playstyle there is a weirdness, that the blacksmith was able to see the gauntlets and ring yet the ranger wasn't. Does the blacksmith have a ring of X-ray vision (for peering into a sack plonked down onto the table)? If not, why was the player denied the visual information available in the scene? This is not like a case in which, say, a player declares that his/her PC drops his/her backpack, forgetting that in a previous session a valuable item had been put inside it.

But anyway, I don't really feel that a major challenge of the game should be remembering which item was put into which container. That can make sense in a certain sort of ultra-contrived dungeon play, but once the gameworld expands to include the sorts of challenges and scenarios that are more typical in contemporary fantasy RPGing, the memory challenge seems a little bit dull to me. As a GM, if I want to challenge, or trick, the players I can think of more interesting as well as more verismilitudionous ways to do it.

 

[cmad1977]

The idea that character knowledge and player knowledge are one and the same is inane.

 

[Sunseeker]

The idea that character knowledge and player knowledge are one and the same is inane.

Agreed, to a point. The knowledge of the character is limited by what the player can reasonably remember/write down and what the DM is willing to remind them about. Player/Character knowledge is rarely identical except in cases where the player can literally remember everything. But noone should assume that just because Bob doesn't remember, doesn't mean Bob's PC has forgotten. As has been said before, an intelligence check to "remember" that there's more than one item here is not unreasonable, but can be easily missed, particularly if the DM wanted to make a point (which he did) and the player wasn't particularly attentive (which he wasn't).

So, failure on all sides, as is usually the correct answer when more than one person is involved in a situation.

 

[cmad1977]

Agreed, to a point. The knowledge of the character is limited by what the player can reasonably remember/write down and what the DM is willing to remind them about. Player/Character knowledge is rarely identical except in cases where the player can literally remember everything. But noone should assume that just because Bob doesn't remember, doesn't mean Bob's PC has forgotten. As has been said before, an intelligence check to "remember" that there's more than one item here is not unreasonable, but can be easily missed, particularly if the DM wanted to make a point (which he did) and the player wasn't particularly attentive (which he wasn't).

So, failure on all sides, as is usually the correct answer when more than one person is involved in a situation.

To me an int check to see if the character remembers something like that is only reasonable of characters routinely make int checks to remember things (did I fasten my buckles right? Int check. Did I remember to pick up my item? Int check. did I wipe after I pooped? Int check)
Basically it's a useless roll made for punitive reasons that should be handled out of game.
And the player needs to respect the work of the DM and pay attention.

 

[Sunseeker]

To me an int check to see if the character remembers something like that is only reasonable of characters routinely make int checks to remember things (did I fasten my buckles right? Int check. Did I remember to pick up my item? Int check. did I wipe after I pooped? Int check)
Basically it's a useless roll made for punitive reasons that should be handled out of game.
And the player needs to respect the work of the DM and pay attention.

Sure, and I admit that I have had players make Int checks to remember something as a somewhat pointed reminder to pay attention, or to see if they were paying attention. But that's the point isn't it? To make sure they're paying attention?

 

[Maxperson]

To me an int check to see if the character remembers something like that is only reasonable of characters routinely make int checks to remember things (did I fasten my buckles right? Int check. Did I remember to pick up my item? Int check. did I wipe after I pooped? Int check)
Basically it's a useless roll made for punitive reasons that should be handled out of game.
And the player needs to respect the work of the DM and pay attention.

For things that don't matter, like wiping your rear and every other example you just gave, a check isn't necessary, because IT DOESN'T MATTER. The player can decide. For something of importance where the PC is about to screw the pooch, but is intelligent enough that he's got a good chance to remember, I'll give the roll. It matters and the PC is not the player and vice versa.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Absolutely. I think there is a disconnect between the two camps in this issue. The successes and failures are important. I agree with that. But the view seems to be rather black and white, and I don't agree with either. Let me explain what I mean. Some posters give the feeling that if you argue the DM was incorrect in his handling of the situation, you don't think there should be consequences for actions. And some other posters give the feeling that if you argue there is a reasonable chance the ranger might lose possession of the items, it's DM trickery, gotcha and whatnot.

I offer this: Because the players made a mistake, there is a chance the guy selling the armor will lose possession of the ring and gauntlets. Depending on his actions, the chance can change, and the Int roll to evaluate the armor was a step in the right direction for the players. And there is also a baseline chance he's just going to notice the ring and gauntlets in terms of passive perception from handling them. Roll the dice, move your mice, live with the results.

Remember, people in the 'real' world are not always penalized for mistakes. Sometimes sensory queues remind allow me to notice my mistake and I'm not penalized. Sometime I suspect something is wrong and take a step to investigate and I'm not penalized. But sometimes neither works out and bad things happen.

I read, then shamelessly deleted the rest. I hope you don't mind, I'm just not against any of that. I just have my way of going about it.

I read, I liked, and I'll respond to this part -

I totally agree that it's not black and white. It never is. My reading of the situation involves a lot more than just the posts made by the DM as well. He mentions that they are best friends. Presumably they know each other very well. So the responses that state in one way or another "the DM is a jerk and I'd never play at his table" don't even come to mind for me. In addition, my general assumption is that the DM and the players are specifically not acting like jerks, and want to continue to play together and be friends. Unless there is something to specifically tell me otherwise, I always give folks the benefit of the doubt.

The fact that they are best friends is really important in my opinion, because I think a player's reaction would be very different if it's one of their best friends as the DM vs. a person they met just before the game.

Combine this with the fact that a summary, retelling, or description of what happened isn't what actually happened. It's a good place to start for a discussion on the situation, but the specific situation and the best solution to that specific situation is really only known by those involved.

As you pointed out, this perspective colors my opinion of what we're discussing, just as everybody else's colors theirs.

I've offered a number of reasons why I think the DM didn't make a mistake, and wasn't wrong. That doesn't mean everybody will (or have to) agree with me. It also doesn't mean that I don't think he could have done better. I do think that some other checks were in order, most likely a check or two made by the smith against the passive perception of the character.

This is also based on my own experiences, and thinking about similar situations with my prior and current groups and what they think would be reasonable and fair. Which is why in the end I think that this is an interesting discussion which lends some valuable insight as to options to handle a situation like this fairly, but also to still provide an opportunity for the merchant to fool the players. The specific methods and situations that are acceptable are very table specific, with some groups that will really enjoy situations like this, and others that won't. A large part of this is related to the kind of game they enjoy altogether.

Ilbranteloth

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

The fact that they are best friends is really important in my opinion, because I think a player's reaction would be very different if it's one of their best friends as the DM vs. a person they met just before the game.

That's a topic that I don't find coming up in a context I can actually talk about it without being far off topic, so thanks for bringing it up.

I find it to be true that how a "best friend" responds to a behavior and how a "person just met" responds to a behavior are often different, as you say.

However, I reach an entirely different conclusion as to how that information should be used: Instead of excusing behaviors as "ok because we're such good friends", I find it best to use the information to expose behaviors as "not going to make the new guy want to come back next week."

If someone that has never met me before the session would choose to not return for another session, or worse leave the game mid-session, because of something I did as DM, then that is a thing which I shouldn't do - and especially shouldn't do to anyone I consider a friend, since I presumably want that friendship to grow stronger over time rather than be constantly challenged by me doing irritating things and potentially ending as a result.

Note: this applies in the context of "that bothers me, so I'm done playing with you" types of complaints (i.e. playing D&D the way is described in this thread, rather than some other way to play D&d), not "just not what I'm into" cases (i.e. playing D&D with a person that doesn't like high fantasy pseudo-medieval stories of any kind), which are extremely different.