D&D 5E Was I in the wrong?

[ThirdWizard]

I'm sure people here will still somehow blame you for it, even though it worked out and the players aren't upset with what happened. Good for you, though.

Dude... no reason to take things so personally...

 

[Maxperson]

Dude... no reason to take things so personally...

Hate to break it to you man, but it's impossible for me to take it personally. None of this was aimed my way. Sorry.

 

[Ristamar]

The character is just some statistics and notes. It can't think, it can't notice anything and it certainly cannot enjoy a game. A character is simply a vehicle the player uses to play the game. All aspects of play are for the player as the character wouldn't be able to appreciate or enjoy them.

A character may be a vehicle, but its driver is utterly deaf, dumb, and blind without the DM's ability to effectively communicate and run a fair game.

 

[ExploderWizard]

A character may be a vehicle, but its driver is utterly deaf, dumb, and blind without the DM's ability to effectively communicate and run a fair game.

Both the player AND the character could hear the shop keeper plainly. Guess which one of them has the responsibility of actively listening? ( Hint: it isn't Cheeks the trusty sidekick)

 

[Aura]

Both the player AND the character could hear the shop keeper plainly. Guess which one of them has the responsibility of actively listening? ( Hint: it isn't Cheeks the trusty sidekick)

Because armor is actually a set of discrete items (even though we almost universally account for it as a single item), the language used by the shopkeeper was appropriate to either of these two scenarios:
(1) The player is presenting an armor set
(2) The player is presenting an armor set, a mismatched pair of gauntlets and an attached ring

Therefore, what the shopkeeper said is not a 'tip off' to scenario 2 in any real respect.

Now, the DM has since said the interaction in the shop showed the shopkeeper acting a bit oddly in other respects, but it is impossible to tell if they actually rise to the level of being a 'tip off'. It's also worth noting we're dealing with his subjective memory here and not specifics. What we do know is the DM did not allow any sort of perception roll or similar mechanic to the player to notice that what he was selling was not what he was expecting to sell, even as he is (likely, we're not sure on this, as noted by Yardiff) likely actually handling the items. Further, he's asking to make an Int roll to assess the armor, which implies more than a complete disconnect from it.

The players made a mistake in the previous scene. But the mistake in the shop was the DM's. I don't hold that against him in any real respect, he seems to be trying to run an entertaining game for his players and all that good jazz. I suspect he merely got a little excited over the possibilities going through his head and unintentionally made an error to see things went that direction. Errors of this nature happen all the time, and they are survivable -- but it doesn't mean they are not errors.

 

[Ristamar]

Both the player AND the character could hear the shop keeper plainly. Guess which one of them has the responsibility of actively listening? ( Hint: it isn't Cheeks the trusty sidekick)

While I don't believe the players are absolved of all responsibility (there's clearly an engagement problem at the table), it doesn't change the fact that there was intentionally poor communication from the DM. If that's how their table rolls, so be it, but as a general rule, I think its bad form.

 

[Carlsen Chris]

So basically, you temporarily made the ranger PC too dumb to realize

Nah, the player made the ranger PC dumb. At least some PC flubs should originate from their player. At least some of those flubs should be major.

In the days of my Second Edition campaigns, this would have merited an Intelligence check. Based on player behavior at the table, I would have assigned a penalty.

 

[Aura]

Nah, the player made the ranger PC dumb. At least some PC flubs should originate from their player. At least some of those flubs should be major.

In the days of my Second Edition campaigns, this would have merited an Intelligence check. Based on player behavior at the table, I would have assigned a penalty.

I feel you're stretching it to say the player made the PC dumb. The player, in a previous scene, made a mistake. In the blacksmith scene, I'd think he has valid opportunity for a perception check to notice he's not selling what he expected as said items come into view (heck, he's probably actually handling them himself), particularly because he goes so far as to ask for an Intelligence check to evaluate what he's selling. How he's to do this while simultaneously being denied the opportunity to even know what he is assessing doesn't make sense.

As I've said before, I feel the denial of information to the player in the blacksmith scene constitutes a DM mistake. He seemed to jump the gun on the previous player mistake and missed the opportunity to provide further information as a result. The game goes on and, thankfully, people were ok with it in the long run. However, this doesn't mean it wasn't a mistake on the DM's part.

 

[Neurotic]

[MENTION=6806492]randrak[/MENTION]

I would say allow them to retrieve the item(s) from the blacksmith, have him raise the guards and chase them out of town (or let them fight legitimate authority). This was player error, translated into character error. Both due to bad bookkeeping (always bad idea), non-involvement (phone) and you (by not handling this behaviour before). Punish any lawful player by turning him neutral if the go through with this. Punish any and all player by moving them one step toward evil if they kill anyone innocent (including guards).

IMPORTANT: warn them in advance that what they are doing is illegal and may have consequences - don't list them, just warn them fairly.

I don't think you did anything wrong, you described the items, told them the ring is stuck (I suppose you did) - and here I disagree with those who say you changed the rules, if you did, you did it for story reasons which is valid - it was their lack of attention that cost them the items.


Finally, talk to phone player to leave off the phone or kick him out completely. I wouldn't mind if he was paying half attention to RP parts esp if he's not social as character - but in combat he slows everyone down by not participating and combats take the longest due to many people doing turns.

 

[AverageCitizen]

Sometimes people lie. The character should have gotten a Wisdom or Intelligence check to remember something that his player forgot, and the shopkeep should have had to roll deception vs passive insight. Other than that, it seems legit. Sometimes we players need to be reminded that screwing up occasionally is more interesting than home-running our way through the whole story.