D&D 5E Was I in the wrong?

[Ristamar]

Perhaps their table enjoys bits of random chaos and setbacks via poor communication. Personally, I'm not interested in emulating absentminded annoyances in my tabletop games. I play enough of "where the f- are my car keys" in real life. I don't want it seeping into my game of D&D, justified by mismatched presumptions and the vagueries of terms like "bundle" and "set" and "armor."

Attentiveness is important. But so is context. Both were sorely lacking in this exchange.

 

[Maxperson]

Perhaps their table enjoys bits of random chaos and setbacks via poor communication. Personally, I'm not interested in emulating absentminded annoyances in my tabletop games. I play enough of "where the f- are my car keys" in real life. I don't want it seeping into my game of D&D, justified by mismatched presumptions and the vagueries of terms like "bundle" and "set" and "armor."

Attentiveness is important. But so is context. Both were sorely lacking in this exchange.

Then you should pay attention in your games. It's not the DM's responsibility to be your memory.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

No, I wasn't one of those players. If I was and had a DM that was deliberately hiding information from me or misinterpreting what the group thought it was doing, I probably would't be playing with that DM.

A good DM does something like this:

Whenever you "pull something over" on the group, make sure there are subtle hints available to them at the moment of truth. Here is how I would have handled the exchange with the blacksmith:

Ranger: "I take the armor to the blacksmith to sell. How much does he offer?"

DM: "Roll me a couple d20s". (The DM intends for the first to be an insight check and the second to be a perception check. Insight to read the blacksmith's reaction, perception to just notice the ring and gauntlets).

A good DM does NOT do something like this:

The ranger absentmindedly said yes and sold it for a very fair price (for an adamantine armor), not realizing he was giving the gauntlets and ring away as well. He then moved on to the magic shop (to check the swords) and then met up with the rest of the crew.

It was then, when they wanted to check the ring and gauntlets that I reminded them that it was all in the set, that the ranger had sold. They were not pleased...and some were not pleased with me for not telling them.

I disagree. The actions and statements of the players are an important aspect of when to call for a check. Based on the scenario as described, the ranger would have had a number of passive checks, but unless they are showing an active interest in the interaction, or that they are suspicious of the smith, I probably wouldn't call for an active check.

I can easily see the ranger taking the bundled armor and placing it on the counter, and the smith noticing the ring and casually turning over the bundle to hide it. If the player isn't indicating any suspicion in the interaction, it would be against their passive Perception. There's no stated reason for them to be closely watching the smith examining the armor.

Regardless, even if it was an active check, if you called for a Perception check and they failed, that would still be the end of it. I wouldn't call for additional checks as the scenario goes on.

Ilbranteloth

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

That reminder changed the course of the interaction simply because you mentioned them.

The "reminder" hasn't changed what the player was trying to do. The "reminder" has made the DM aware of what the player meant by the exact words they chose to use, preventing the player becoming justifiably upset at the DM making the wrong assumption or otherwise misunderstanding.

Your concept of selling the backpack (including in your later post of selling the rope) makes no sense. An item you put into your backpack is something entirely different than something that was found, and described, as one item with unique features, and then "bundled up as a set" by one of the players.

yes, the backpack selling example doesn't make sense - that's my point; you don't sell everything in your backpack by saying "I sell item X" some time after "I'll just put this stuff in my backpack for now," so why do you sell everything in this bundle by saying "I sell item X" some time after "we'll just bundle these up for now"?

As soon as you mention the patches in the interaction, you are calling out attention to them, virtually ensuring that they won't accidentally sell them.

Again, that doesn't cause any problems - though it does solve a few.

To me, it's no different than the players missing a secret door with a treasure behind it. You give them the clues, you let them determine what to do with it. If they decide not to investigate it, you aren't obligated to remind them of it if they return to the room later.

The DM is provider of the information the players need in order to know what their characters are seeing in the world around them - if I give a player some clue (say their is a stopped clock on the wall, but mechanics are still ticking) and they don't do anything with it, and they return to the same room later and I don't give the same clue because their character can see and hear it again, then that clue is no longer in that room because I have caused it to cease to exist - all in the name of "well, I said it once... your fault if you missed it" antagonistic play.

Life is extremely complex. People forget things all the time. How many of us have put something on the kitchen counter or by the front door so we don't forget to take it with us, only to remember an hour after we left that we were supposed to bring it with us? This is a perfectly reasonable thing to expect and allow in the game.

I'll admit that I have left something minor behind while heading off to my next task... but I will not equate forgetting something I planned on taking along with forgetting the objects which are required for my trip to where I am headed having a point (i.e. I might forget my hat when driving my car over to a mechanic for a tune up... but forgetting the gauntlet and the ring in this scenario is equivalent to forgetting my car on that same trip).

 

[Sunseeker]

Then you should pay attention in your games. It's not the DM's responsibility to be your memory.

Neither is it good DMing to use purposefully vague language to take advantage of players.

There are a myriad of reasons for forgetfulness and inattentiveness. Sometimes it's phones, sometimes it's having other things on our minds, which happens because we're human. If you space out for a moment you should be able to trust your DM enough not to be a jerk and try to take advantage of you.

Which is the problem here: it feels like the DM took advantage of the PLAYER, not the character.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Yes, but you're also assuming that what they think is a set of armor is the same as what you think.

No, I'm not assuming that. The DM in this scenario is the one that assumed that.

The player said "suit of armor" and could have meant that one of two ways (with and without the gauntlet/ring inclusion).
The DM assumed they knew which way the player meant it, rather than actually clarify with the player - and evidence shortly following proved that the DM had assumed the incorrect way the player meant it.

If you go to buy a used car, and a door is replaced but not painted yet, you wouldn't ask, "Does it come with the door? Because clearly it's not part of the original car."

That's not equivalent to the scenario at hand. This would be:

I'm selling my car. It's currently got a seat cover and a steering wheel cover on it.
The guy looking to buy it says something along the lines of "...all of it?" which doesn't exactly make any sense to me, but I assure him "yes" I am selling the whole car.
Then the guy looks at me funny because he thinks he just bought the seat and steering wheel covers (and maybe even my lunch and cell phone since I likely haven't cleared those out just yet either), while I think I sold him the car and we never discussed any other items as being for sale.

 

[Ristamar]

Then you should pay attention in your games. It's not the DM's responsibility to be your memory.

If that's the sort of word/memory game the DM wants to play, he can justify nearly anything in any circumstance where a player's clear intent lacks absolute specificity.

If one of my players is trying to quickly offload some armor to expedite the flow of play, he's assuming I (as the DM) know which pieces of armor he's trying to sell. Twisting those assumptions and following up later with "Well, you didn't specifically say..." when the player is wondering why his other items are missing is not a good way to establish trust. It's this sort of behavior that makes every attempt to disarm a trap blossom into a 20 minute encounter because the players don't trust the DM to accurately adjudicate their actions.

 

[ThirdWizard]

The problem with this is a part of the challenge of playing a game in your heads.

If you remind them that there is a ring and a different pair of gauntlets, which you already described in detail, then you are also putting a big sign on them that says "don't sell these."

I think it is incredibly important at this juncture to point out that as soon as the player sold the armor, the way they discovered that the other two items were gone was that they went "Now we're going to sell the gauntlet and ring."

The players didn't "forget" that they bundled them together. They didn't expect them to be sold, because the player was just selling the armor. They were good natured and played along, but that doesn't mean that the DM was in the right. So, I don't understand this line of logic at all. The players didn't forget about the existence of the items, they didn't realize that by saying they were selling the armor that they would end up selling the things that they packaged along with the armor.

Let me ask you this. Let's say you are playing D&D, and you find some 500 gp diamonds and five spell scrolls slipped through a magic ring, and you say you bundle it together. Then, you say you sell the spell scrolls. The DM describes the merchant as saying "All of it?" And, you're like "Yeah, all of it." Then you go off in game and say you're going to identify the ring, and the DM says "Oh no, you just sold the ring."

Are you absolutely sure you would be okay with this? 100% sure you wouldn't be even a bit teed off at the DM for that?

Yes, but you're also assuming that what they think is a set of armor is the same as what you think.

Actually, the DM in question is assuming that when the player says set of armor, they also mean things that aren't actually part of the set of armor. So, how do you reconcile that?

If you go to buy a used car, and a door is replaced but not painted yet, you wouldn't ask, "Does it come with the door? Because clearly it's not part of the original car."

If a player said "I'm selling the car" and then later mentioned that he was putting on a jacket, and the DM said "oh no, the jacket was in the car you sold" would you consider that fair? I'd consider that unnecessarily antagonistic personally.

Just because something is stored with something else does not make it that thing. The gauntlet and ring are not the suit of armor. They were just bundled together, like putting your jacket in the back seat of your car.

 

[seebs]

Then you should pay attention in your games. It's not the DM's responsibility to be your memory.

This is a really hostile way to approach things, and for a lot of us, that degree of "pay attention" is not physically compatible with how our brains work. Even medicated, I simply can't keep track of things consistently; stuff just sorta slips my mind. Even really obvious stuff. Even stuff I care about.

Luckily for me, I play with adults who are more interested in having fun than showing off how not-disabled they are, and everything works out fine, because if something's obviously inconsistent with what's immediately obvious to my character, the GM or another player will usually prompt me about it.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I think it is incredibly important at this juncture to point out that as soon as the player sold the armor, the way they discovered that the other two items were gone was that they went "Now we're going to sell the gauntlet and ring."

The players didn't "forget" that they bundled them together. They didn't expect them to be sold, because the player was just selling the armor. They were good natured and played along, but that doesn't mean that the DM was in the right. So, I don't understand this line of logic at all. The players didn't forget about the existence of the items, they didn't realize that by saying they were selling the armor that they would end up selling the things that they packaged along with the armor.

Let me ask you this. Let's say you are playing D&D, and you find some 500 gp diamonds and five spell scrolls slipped through a magic ring, and you say you bundle it together. Then, you say you sell the spell scrolls. The DM describes the merchant as saying "All of it?" And, you're like "Yeah, all of it." Then you go off in game and say you're going to identify the ring, and the DM says "Oh no, you just sold the ring."

Are you absolutely sure you would be okay with this? 100% sure you wouldn't be even a bit teed off at the DM for that?

They are two completely unrelated items, so no I wouldn't expect that would occur nor would I be happy with it.

Actually, the DM in question is assuming that when the player says set of armor, they also mean things that aren't actually part of the set of armor. So, how do you reconcile that?

With the rules. PHB pg 145
Chain Mail...the suit includes gauntlets.
Plate...a suit of plate includes gauntlets.

You can't purchase a set of gauntlets separately in the game, and in the game they are expected to be part of a suit of armor. Even historically for plate armor, the gauntlets would have been made with and for that suit. And in this specific scenario, the DM even pointed out that they did not look like the original gauntlets made for that suit. They are still part of the suit, just not oem.

If there had been some discussion about the gauntlets at any point prior to selling the armor, that probably would have made a difference to me as a DM as well. But it would appear that there was no point, until after the sale, that the indicated any specific interest in the gauntlets alone.

If a player said "I'm selling the car" and then later mentioned that he was putting on a jacket, and the DM said "oh no, the jacket was in the car you sold" would you consider that fair? I'd consider that unnecessarily antagonistic personally.

Just because something is stored with something else does not make it that thing. The gauntlet and ring are not the suit of armor. They were just bundled together, like putting your jacket in the back seat of your car.

But this goes beyond being stored with something else. It's part of it. Reasonably and as noted in the rules. The DM wasn't trying to set up a scenario where they would be fleeced, it presented itself naturally and he (as the NPC) took advantage of it.

That doesn't mean that I don't think it's unreasonable to not consider them part of a suit of armor. If, as DM, that's the direction you'd go with it, that's fine.

Does that mean the new suit of armor they purchased also didn't come with gauntlets? Because I think that if they aren't part of the suit when you sell them, they shouldn't be when you purchase them either.

But if I was the player in this scenario I might have initially been annoyed (like for a split-second, then in character), but then you look at how it played out, and how gauntlets are handled in the game, I'd be fine with it. It's an "I can't believe I did that" moment, like the jacket in the back of the car, leaving your wallet or briefcase on top of the car, your lunch sitting on the kitchen table, or the concert tickets in the drawer. We do boneheaded things and they become funny stories for the future.

It's extremely difficult to handle an interaction like this where an NPC is trying to get something of value from the PCs in a negotiation. Because you can't describe every single thing that they can see, it's automatically assumed that if you mention something it's important. Which is why I make sure to put in a lot of descriptions and such that aren't important. But mentioning the gauntlets at any point in this scenario would virtually eliminate the possibility that smith would be able to succeed in duping the PCs.

I totally understand why some people would be bothered by it. I just think that based on the description, the game concept of armor, and the importance (or lack thereof) of what they lost it's a non-issue. If something is really an issue for my players, then we'll discuss it and make a decision. If that means retconning something, so be it. But this wouldn't have been one of them in 35+ years.

Ilbranteloth