D&D 5E Was I in the wrong?

[Noctem]

The ranger stated his intention. When he got to the actual interaction he did not properly execute his intention. Its called screwing the pooch and it happens. It happens more often to those who aren't paying attention and fail to recognize warning signals.

The ranger stated the intentions OF THE GROUP. Not just his own. The group had collectively decided that they would sell the armor set, not the gauntlet and ring. You need to understand this. He stated exactly what the group had decided: I want this set of armor appraised. Not: I want this set of armor + gauntlet + ring appraised. The DM had previously made it clear the gauntlet and ring WERE NOT part of the armor set. So why do you keep ignoring these points? And what warning signals? The smith asking if he was selling the armor set for the price he appraised the armor set at? How does that warn you that the DM is about to make you sell the gauntlet and ring you previously agreed as a GROUP that you were NOT GOING TO SELL?

The DM didn't "have" the ranger do anything. The sale was role played out. The ranger had the opportunity to pause and ask for clarification but did not do so.

Yes he did. He forced the group to sell items they made it clear they weren't going to sell. He did it in a way that prevented anyone else at the table from understanding what was going on. Not just the ranger or the guy on his cell phone. NO ONE ELSE at the table understood what was going on except the DM who was maliciously screwing them over. He failed them in every way possible, on purpose. Why would anyone at the table ask for clarification when they had expressed their intent and had even made rolled dice checks to fulfill that intent? Basically you're saying they shouldn't trust the DM to honor their stated intent? Should they distrust the DM and be under the impression that he's out to screw them over at every turn?

Yes it was clear the items were not part of the armor, which is why the decision to bundle them together wasn't the best idea.

How the items are carried back to town for 2 days of travel is SO irrelevant to what the DM did that it baffles me that you would bring this up to justify the DM's actions.

Intent <> Execution

A D&D party may intend to do many things. Some of these things may go as the party intended, others may not.

Ah yes, good on the DM to maliciously screw over the party. That's the spirit! Let's hand waive that away and just say it happens! Shucks!

Responses in bold.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Maxperson]

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

Either way, the miscommunication was on the part of the players and since the players were all present at the table, the ranger player has no excuses.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Either way, the miscommunication was on the part of the players and since the players were all present at the table, the ranger player has no excuses.

I guess the difference is, I don't think miscommunication should be a reason for a player character's action to be different than what the player is trying to accomplish. If the DM knows that the player is trying to do A, but the players words technically mean that they're doing B, then it is in everyone's best interests to clarify the situation so that all parties involved are in agreement as to what is going on in the game.

 

[jgsugden]

This is all really simple. We're complicating it with assumptions and partial facts.

The core advice that should be given:

While a character can be tricked by an NPC, a player should never feel tricked by the DM.

How can a character be tricked without the player being tricked? You give the player the opportunity to avoid the trickery that the character might suffer. This can be done with die rolls, with clues, or other techniques... the key is that when the 'trick' is revealed, the player must feel like the character had the opportunity to succeed and that it just didn't work out for them.

Secondary advice:

A DM should never punish characters for player behavior.

Nothing you do in game as a DM should be punishment for the actions of a player. The character issues and the player issues are two separate things and need to be treated as such (to the extent possible). If a player ticks you off by not paying attention, by talking on the phone during the game, by disrupting the game, etc...: Deal with the player. Ask the player to stop these things or leave the group. Don't punish the PC.

If the player misses key facts that the character should know because the player wasn't paying attention: The character *should know*. Tell the player again if they try to do something they obviously would not do if they remembered the key fact. If the character is low on intelligence, make them roll to remember - perhaps - but the actions and knowledge of the player and the character should be treated separately.

Obviously, if you kick a player out of a group and nobody wants to take over the PC, there will be in game consequences for out of game actions. However, minimize this where possible to maintain the story you're weaving with your players.

 

[Maxperson]

I guess the difference is, I don't think miscommunication should be a reason for a player character's action to be different than what the player is trying to accomplish. If the DM knows that the player is trying to do A, but the players words technically mean that they're doing B, then it is in everyone's best interests to clarify the situation so that all parties involved are in agreement as to what is going on in the game.

The miscommunication was between the players. The ranger PC was at the table when the barbarian wrapped the entire thing as a set. People forget and make mistakes. It happens to PCs just as much as to real people. I'd have given a roll myself, but I see no reason to treat the players like children and protect them from themselves. If they make a mistake, they've made a mistake. Mistakes like that add to the game and allow different and grand interactions as group attempts to overcome it.

 

[Lejaun]

I just want to bring this up because in the vast flood of recent responses, it seems as though a essential bit of explanation was either missed, or is being ignored.

Cellphone guy and the ranger who sold the gear are not the same person. Randrak was complaining about two different things.

I think a lot of us understand that they are different people, but some of us also believe that they are still related.

 

[ThirdWizard]

The miscommunication was between the players. The ranger PC was at the table when the barbarian wrapped the entire thing as a set. People forget and make mistakes. It happens to PCs just as much as to real people. I'd have given a roll myself, but I see no reason to treat the players like children and protect them from themselves. If they make a mistake, they've made a mistake. Mistakes like that add to the game and allow different and grand interactions as group attempts to overcome it.

I guess that's another way we differ. I don't see a miscommunication as a mistake. Miscommunications happen. The player heard that another PC was bundling everything together. He might think they're going in to the same bag or backpack. He doesn't realize that they're now a single item. That isn't a mistake, it's a just two people hearing the same thing and imagining it differently.

Happens all the time in D&D, and normally it doesn't matter. But, if you get caught up in the minutia of it to the point where different people expect different outcomes, and the DM knows that they expect different outcomes but lets it happen anyway, then that's pretty adversarial in my book at best.

 

[Ristamar]

A PC is aware of the items he owns (barring some odd, extenuating, and possibly magical circumstances), thus he is cognizant of the items exchanged in a transaction, even if the respective player is frustratingly ignorant of the situation and may not understand the full potential of the items. The shopkeeper's ruse was fine up until the point where the items and currency were exchanged in-game. At that time, as an honest and fair DM, you should have described the character handing over the items. There still could have been a tense, interesting encounter at that point when the confusion over the deal came to a head.

As for the true nature of the gauntlets and the ring, a lot of that is dependent upon the nature of magic items in each individual campaign and the customary style of play.

Bottom line, your frustration with the players' lack of engagement is understandable, but screwing them over by obfuscating which items were part of a sale is not the answer to your problems. That type of trickery won't improve your game, it will only erode trust and further hinder the enjoyment of everyone at the table.

 

[Faenor]

Adults would laugh at the error on the part of the players and move on to roleplaying possible solutions. Quitters aren't acting like adults, especially when they were the ones that made the error.

My intention was to give a warning. Too many DMs wonder why or just accept that their gaming groups are short lived when it's really because they apply irritating house rules and invoke dm authority over rules lawyering players. Or create some weird non-Tolkien or low magic setting. If you want your group to not fall apart, then it's up to you to be the adult. If you prefer being right, then by all means proceed, but don't be surprised when you are sitting alone in your rightness. As I always say, the one common factor in all my failed relationships with other people is other people.