D&D 5E Was I in the wrong?

[Noctem]

All DMs can play.

Few players want to DM. Because of comments like we see in this comment thread.

By the magic of logic, we reach the inescapable conclusion, that most people have observed, that the number of players > number of DMs.

My personal preference is to play. Yet, in my decades of TTRPGs, I am almost always the DM. Why? Because I have a willingness to understand the rules, put in the time, and deal with all of the extraneous crud that comes with DMing.

There exist groups where the players and DMs rotate out, and that is amazing and awesome. I highly recommend that! But more often than not, most people just want to play, and one person is stuck with an often-thankless task.

Still, it has been fascinating to see the battle lines drawn given that none of us were there, and none of us are part of that group. We may have a future in television punditry!

The DM here is using a guy being on his cell as justification for screwing over an entire group of people after they stated their intentions to only sell the armor and not the magical gauntlet and ring they specifically were interested in. The DM then sets them up to fail, doesn't give them the information needed to make sound decisions, uses an NPC to passive aggressively vent his frustration and finally is surprised that the group of people he plays with are unhappy by his bs?

I think that if this DM is frustrated enough by a guy being on his cell phone, to the point that he feels justified breaking Wheaton's Law at a table filled with his "best friends", he needs to take a step back and get a different point of view on things. Clearly his actions are becoming malicious. Take a break, regroup and later come back and try DM'ing again. Maybe then a guy being on his cell won't bother you.

Maybe someone else in the group wants to give DM'ing a shot and will have just seen a great example of what NOT TO DO to guide him.

Oh and of course, the more the DM posts, the more it becomes obvious that he was maliciously setting up the group to fail: Now we know that the Ranger actually asked to get the armor set appraised in value and rolled well. Meaning that the DM had a responsibility at that point to properly transmit information to the player about what the worth of the set was. So if the DM had actually been working WITH the party instead of AGAINST it, he should have stated: The armor is worth X or around that, the gauntlet is worth x or around that and the ring is worth x or around that. Since they were effectively 3 different items. The DM knew the intentions of the party and took every opportunity to set them up to fail and then was surprised they were upset. Terrible DM'ing, he failed them at every turn. And he consciously did so ON PURPOSE! And his justification: There's a guy on his cell phone and it's bothering me.

 

[ExploderWizard]

No DM EVER has done a great job of being the eyes and ears of the players in the game world. It just isn't possible. Every single second of game play the players are effectively missing thousands of different clues as to what is going on in the player characters game world.

Is the blood running down that orc hit with the arrow a lot of blood for that wound? Not enough blood? What color is that blood? What does it smell like? Does it seem to be stopping or steady?

Did nearby birds take flight once battle started? Did that magic missile damage any vegetation as it traveled tot he orc?

What smell is coming from the wind blowing from behind the player characters?

As DM's we do our best but we fail every single second that we play the game. Because of this the DM has a obligation to act as a warning system to his players and player characters. Stress important decisions and always give the pc's chances after you warn them to back off.

The Player isn't really standing in a room buying and selling his goods with a npc. He can't really SEE and feel the gear in question, he can't smell the dried blood still clinging to the armor of his defeated foe. He can't feel the tingle of magic or feel the weight difference in magical armor. YOU the DM have to knock him over the head with important issues like this.

"are you sure you want to sell this gear? Remember it contains that gauntlet and ring you guys were talking about" is NOT wrong.

This is why it is so important for players to pay attention and ask questions when they are unsure of something.

The DM told them that the ring was stuck on the gauntlet. The DM told them that the gauntlets looked different from the rest of the armor.

The players decided to put the gauntlets with attached ring in a bundle with the armor.

The blacksmith asked if the ranger was selling ALL of it. A player who wasn't sure what the NPC meant by that would ask for clarification.

The DM should describe something a character would notice especially if a change in status takes place. For example if a thief had stolen the gauntlets & ring before the ranger went to the shop, the DM would mention that those items were NOT there with the rest of the armor when it was unpacked.

In this case, since it was the players who bundled the items, the assumption is there was no change in the status quo. The state of things was exactly as the players had described them.

The DM shouldn't have to constantly remind players of things that they did themselves. Exceptions can certainly be made especially for long gaps between game sessions.

There is a good example of this in the Moldvay Basic example of play. Black Dougal the thief died from a trapped chest. One party member dumped out his pack to carry treasure in.

The party heard monsters approaching and quickly retreated through a secret door. They grabbed Dougal's body and brought it with them. They heard that the monsters that had come into the room had discovered Dougal's tools & rations which had been dumped from his pack.

No one in the party thought to bring along his gear. It was party member who dumped the pack out to begin with.

Was the DM obligated to ask the party if anyone was bring along the discarded gear? Heck no! The party had just dumped it so if they didn't realize that the stuff was on the floor then that is their problem.

 

[Noctem]

you skipped the part where the ranger said "I want to sell the armor" and the DM then maliciously forced that to mean "the armor + gauntlet + ring" which was a contradiction to what the players wanted to do and had expressed. Nice try though. You also skip the part where the ranger wanted the armor appraised and the DM didn't give back useful information on purpose to screw over the party. At every turn the DM was working against the party to set them up to fail on purpose. GJ defending this guy so he can feel justified in screwing over a group of people he calls his "best friends".

 

[ThirdWizard]

Yes, the player did have that knowledge. The player was the one that wrapped them up as a set, so he clearly had the knowledge. He just forgot about it because he wasn't paying attention. It's not the DM's job to protect the players from themselves. It's the players' jobs to pay attention.

Not quite. A different player wrapped it up than the ranger. So, one person wrapped it up together, and another sold it.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[ExploderWizard]

you skipped the part where the ranger said "I want to sell the armor" and the DM then maliciously forced that to mean "the armor + gauntlet + ring" which was a contradiction to what the players wanted to do and had expressed. Nice try though. You also skip the part where the ranger wanted the armor appraised and the DM didn't give back useful information on purpose to screw over the party. At every turn the DM was working against the party to set them up to fail on purpose. GJ defending this guy so he can feel justified in screwing over a group of people he calls his "best friends".

"I want to sell the armor. "

" You mean, ALL of it?"

" Hey, what does he mean by that? Whats on the table exactly?"

TA-DA! Problem solved.

 

[Noctem]

I can just refer to the posts of the DM in question here. He's explained himself the following:

He starts his post by saying he plays with his best friends, he's the DM, there's a player he's annoyed with because he's always on his phone (attempted justification for his actions, which as pointed out isn't even relevant. His actions were wrong regardless)

Party kills bad guy and get armor, gauntlet and ring. Bad guy is wearing the gear so the party is required to handle the items to loot. 5e rules:

Per the 5th Edition Dungeon Master's Guide: IDENTIFYING A MAGIC ITEM
Some magic items are indistinguishable from their
nonmagical counterparts, whereas other magic items
display their magical nature conspicuously. Whatever a
magic item's appearance, handling the item is enough to
give a character a sense that something is extraordinary
about it.

So that clears up that the party should have been given the information that the gear was magical in nature when they handled it, when looting the body.

After that, the party bags the loot. How they decide to do this is completely irrelevant. If the argument is that the DM doesn't have to be super picky about everything, the same goes for the party. Simply saying "We loot the gear and put it in our bag together" should be enough.

They go to town and collectively agree to sell "the armor" and that they want to keep the "gauntlet and ring". The ranger (not even the person the DM is annoyed with), goes to the smith to get it appraised. He says "Hi I'm selling this set of armor" which is clearly meant to only be the armor and NOT the gauntlet + ring. The party just discussed this. As pointed out by others in this thread, it's called a SET OF PLATE ARMOR. Saying I'm selling "SET OF ARMOR" does not represent selling gauntlets and more specifically selling a ring clearly not part of the armor. The DM pointed that out to the party earlier after all.

So now the DM is aware of what the party is expecting, what the party knows about the gear in question and what the goal of going to the smith is: Get the armor appraised and then sell it if the smith is willing to pay the fair appraised price. The Ranger rolls INT well and gets info back from the DM: "The smith says the armor is worth around x which is within the expected ballpark". The ranger then goes "ok sounds good, I'll sell you the armor for x". And now we get to the malicious part:

Despite all of the above and information the DM gave to the party, the stated intent of the party, the stated checks the ranger made, etc... Despite ALL OF THAT the DM then goes "So you're selling this set of armor for x?" with a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MEANING than the one expressed by the players, the ranger, the ability check rolled, etc.. up to that point. And not only does he do this, he does so with the conscious GOAL of screwing over the entire group. So of course since the intent has been expressed, the actions up to this point all clearly show the intent expressed and the player TRUSTS THE DM NOT TO BE A DOUCHE: He simply agrees, that yes, this armor set for the value you stated.

The DM makes the transaction, with full knowledge and intent of screwing over the group. Later, when the group goes "alright lets take a solid look at that ring and gauntlet" the DM goes "but guys, you sold it earlier to the smith!" only for the group to get very confused I'm sure. Again, the intent stated by the group and the actions done by the group were clearly made with the intent to sell "the set of armor" which did not include as stated by the DM previously "the gauntlet + ring".

And finally, to get back to his justification for violating Wheaton's Law: But the guy is on his cell phone during the game, it's annoying.

You defend him all you want lowkey. He came here asking us if what he did was wrong. I'm here to tell him that it was. Agree to disagree.

 

[Noctem]

"I want to sell the armor. "

" You mean, ALL of it?"

" Hey, what does he mean by that? Whats on the table exactly?"

TA-DA! Problem solved.

"I'm going to get the set of armor appraised by the smith and then sell if it's a good price"

"roll INT for the appraisal to see if it's a fair deal for the set of armor"

*roll well*

"You think it's a good price"

"Ok I sell the armor."

"GOTCHA! You didn't just sell the armor! You also sold the gauntlet and ring that weren't part of the armor set, which I specifically stated wasn't earlier and the group stated they didn't want to sell! And I did it because THAT GUY is on his cell phone during the game!"

But wait, he didn't even tell the group that much.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Per the 5th Edition Dungeon Master's Guide: IDENTIFYING A MAGIC ITEM
Some magic items are indistinguishable from their
nonmagical counterparts, whereas other magic items
display their magical nature conspicuously. Whatever a
magic item's appearance, handling the item is enough to
give a character a sense that something is extraordinary
about it.

So that clears up that the party should have been given the information that the gear was magical in nature when they handled it, when looting the body.

I think you may have missed the post where the DM informed us that he doesn't use RAW for identifying magical items.

 

[Noctem]

I think you may have missed the post where the DM informed us that he doesn't use RAW for identifying magical items.

His refusal to use the rules of the game he's playing doesn't change the fact that they exist. If he's not going to use them, he should make it crystal clear to his players via description etc what is or isn't magical. And I believe he did so as he described the gauntlet + ring as being welded together like the one ring fused to the gauntlet of Sauron from lord of the rings. A clear reference which is also probably why the party stated THEY DIDN'T WANT TO SELL THE RING AND GAUNTLET.