D&D 5E Was I in the wrong?

[pemerton]

Now in other games it's up to the player to remember the important details to avoid having their pcs doing dumb things. In this kind of a game it wouldn't be a dm error.

Even in that sort of style, I still think this episode is a bit of an outlier. The classic example of what you describe would by the player, at time 1, saying that his/her PC puts a valuable object into his/her backpack, and then at time 2 declaring that his/her PC leaves the backpack behind.

In those circumstances, the player has made a mistake and lost the valuable object. And in the fiction, the PC has forgotten that s/he put the object in his/her backpack.

The puzzle for me about this scenario is how, at one and the same time, the NPC purchaser could inspect the armour while the PC wasn't able to see the gauntlets and ring. This is overriding the fiction by application of a player memory test.

 

[Aura]

So, to be clear: when the GM was running the player through this scene, although - as far as we can tell - there was never any description along the lines of the armour rummages through your bag and looks at various pieces without taking them out, that's what the player was supposed to imagine happening?

Yes. Between this 'angled bag scenario' and the 'odd counter construction scenario', people are now trying to justify the DM action through inclusion of rather odd events that certainly would have warranted mention. In fact the DM did tell us what he did highlight in the scene, yet these were not mentioned, so it is difficult to believe either of these fanciful scenarios happened.

 

[Sunseeker]

The puzzle for me about this scenario is how, at one and the same time, the NPC purchaser could inspect the armour while the PC wasn't able to see the gauntlets and ring. This is overriding the fiction by application of a player memory test.

Exactly. If the shopkeeper could see it, why couldn't the player see it just as easily? If the shopkeeper had to make a check, then the player needs to meet the same DC to notice yes? Otherwise, it should be covered under "the character saw it" so the player knows about it.

 

[MostlyDm]

So which games are you talking about and how are they different from D&D?

He meant different styles of D&D game. I mentioned this sort of thing a few pages back.

Some games go with a fairly strict accounting of, well, everything. In games like this: if you didn't say it you didn't do it, and if you said it you did it, and if you forgot the mission parameters because it's been 4 weeks in real life versus a day in game then too bad.

Players are encouraged to take notes, pay close attention to what's going on, choose their actions carefully, etc. The GM does not make any generous assumptions along the lines of "obviously your character would remember X."

It can be fun if done right. But it's not for everyone.

 

[Maxperson]

Double checked. They bundled them up as a set.

I'm fine with the set referring to all the armor pieces. I concede that point.

In a further post now lost to the pages, the DM also went out of his way to remind the players that the set contained the ring and gauntlets at a time in-between the bundling and sale.

So what it comes down to is expectations. I tend to believe and play in a manner where part of the Dms job is to ensure the players are on the same page as their character. As such it would be a dm error in my games of the dm failed to make sure the player understood any information about the scene that his character did. (At the very least in my game dm needed to make sure player understood character recognized possibly magical gauntlets were present in the transaction). In my game if the dm wanted to deprive the character of such knowledge he would need to include in scene justifications for why the character wouldn't know.

Now in other games it's up to the player to remember the important details to avoid having their pcs doing dumb things. In this kind of a game it wouldn't be a dm error.

Pretty much. Having bundled them as a set, been reminded that they were a set, and then walked in and sold the set, I'm okay with what the DM did. Myself, I'd still have given the PC an intelligence check.

 

[Yardiff]

He meant different styles of D&D game. I mentioned this sort of thing a few pages back.

Some games go with a fairly strict accounting of, well, everything. In games like this: if you didn't say it you didn't do it, and if you said it you did it, and if you forgot the mission parameters because it's been 4 weeks in real life versus a day in game then too bad.

Players are encouraged to take notes, pay close attention to what's going on, choose their actions carefully, etc. The GM does not make any generous assumptions along the lines of "obviously your character would remember X."

It can be fun if done right. But it's not for everyone.

Your right I miss read his post sorry FrogReaver.

 

[Yardiff]

He meant different styles of D&D game. I mentioned this sort of thing a few pages back.

Some games go with a fairly strict accounting of, well, everything. In games like this: if you didn't say it you didn't do it, and if you said it you did it, and if you forgot the mission parameters because it's been 4 weeks in real life versus a day in game then too bad.

Players are encouraged to take notes, pay close attention to what's going on, choose their actions carefully, etc. The GM does not make any generous assumptions along the lines of "obviously your character would remember X."

It can be fun if done right. But it's not for everyone.

In a case like this, even with taking notes, I'd think a GM would give a recap of what had happened.

In the same game session not so much.

 

[FrogReaver]

Your right I miss read his post sorry FrogReaver.

No problem sorry for assuming the worst about that reply.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think it can line up nicely within that play style. It's just in this case the fiction becomes the character forgetting the set contained a magical item. No need for the character not to see the item. There is a very simple fiction for why a character would sell a magic ring after seeing it in this situation. He forgot it was magical.

Even in that sort of style, I still think this episode is a bit of an outlier. The classic example of what you describe would by the player, at time 1, saying that his/her PC puts a valuable object into his/her backpack, and then at time 2 declaring that his/her PC leaves the backpack behind.

In those circumstances, the player has made a mistake and lost the valuable object. And in the fiction, the PC has forgotten that s/he put the object in his/her backpack.

The puzzle for me about this scenario is how, at one and the same time, the NPC purchaser could inspect the armour while the PC wasn't able to see the gauntlets and ring. This is overriding the fiction by application of a player memory test.

 

[FrogReaver]

Totally agree. For the most part the arguments justifying the Dms behavior have been unconvincing imo. Doesn't mean there isn't an explanation that avoids those things you pointed out.

Yes. Between this 'angled bag scenario' and the 'odd counter construction scenario', people are now trying to justify the DM action through inclusion of rather odd events that certainly would have warranted mention. In fact the DM did tell us what he did highlight in the scene, yet these were not mentioned, so it is difficult to believe either of these fanciful scenarios happened.