D&D 5E Was I in the wrong?

[seebs]

It certainly sounded to me like the DM intentionally misled the player to take advantage of the fact that the player was distracted.

I think the big thing is, the ring is not "part of the suit of armor", even if you argue that the gauntlets are.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

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.

So, I agree that there's a reasonable approach to this sort of thing, and as a DM I'll often remind players of important things they may have forgotten. Part of it is taking into account the players themselves. For example, I don't expect the same things from my 12-year-old daughter as I do somebody who has been playing for 20 years.

Then it's a question as to whether it would be obvious that the character forgot about the gauntlets vs you forgetting about them. And the "you" in this case is all of the players.

So, first off they have decided that the armor, at the very least, is not magical since they are just looking to sell it. Yes, he tried to get things identified first, but never noted that he would be keeping the gauntlets with the ring attached.

Next, the DM did give clues, whether you think they were sufficient or not is a matter of opinion. They were an attempt to remind them that there was something important to consider, and they didn't pick up on it.

There's no real description of how they presented the armor. It is stated that it's bundled together with rope, so my assumption would be that it's still in the same bundle until shown to the smith. Having worked in retail for a great many years, most people have a tendency to just dump something and let you look at it. So I think this is all very reasonable. I probably would have fleshed out the interaction a bit more, and if they character had just dumped it on the counter, that would lead to different situations than if the player had started to remove parts of the armor to highlight the quality, craftsmanship, etc.

Which brings us to the question as to whether they remember the gauntlets, or notice them on the counter. As I've said, in my game this would be a passive Perception check, because there is no stated suspicion, nor an active search occurring. You're just checking to see if they happen to notice something.

If they were actively showing the pieces to the smith, then I probably wouldn't have even bothered with a check. That's a point where I would mention the gauntlets. Probably something like, "these are fairly beat up already, I'll need to do some repairs, and these gauntlets aren't even of the same craftsmanship, and will certainly lower the value."

I'd argue that if the smith thought he was onto something, he wouldn't have asked anything. He'd offer a price and see if he can make the deal. Having him verify whether he was selling "all of it?" is a pretty good hint in my book. It makes the player think about it, it's a question that doesn't entirely make sense, but it doesn't blatantly tip the hand of the NPC like asking "including the gauntlets?"

This is the point where I probably would have made a passive Perception check against the Deception or Persuasion check of the smith.

My daughter has a lot of difficulty focusing and remembering things as well. Which is one of the reasons I wanted her playing D&D with me. It's a great learning tool for her. Which is also why I make sure she's taking notes, etc. The group of players makes a difference in how I handle a specific scenario, including this one. But to me it was an opportunity to have an interaction in a way that doesn't always present itself, and for the group to have a little fun, even if it's at their expense.

Ilbranteloth

 

[ThirdWizard]

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

The ring and suit of armor aren't completely unrelated items?

 

[Lanliss]

It certainly sounded to me like the DM intentionally misled the player to take advantage of the fact that the player was distracted.

I think the big thing is, the ring is not "part of the suit of armor", even if you argue that the gauntlets are.

But the ring is stuck to the gauntlets, which are part of the armor.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

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.

I'm not saying "I said it once...your fault if you missed it" and if that's what you're getting from this discussion, you're missing my point.

Have you ever played the "Where's Waldo" books? Even when you've found him in one of the pictures, you can go back to it later and have to do the whole thing over again because you lost him. Sometimes your memory of where he is, is right. It's often not.

If you notice subtle scratches on the floor, or maybe a light draft, why would you automatically notice it when you returned to the room? Maybe you have a better chance, maybe you don't. Maybe the draft is gone.

The clock doesn't cease to exist, and if they ask about it, it's there. If they decided it wasn't important the first time, it may go completely unnoticed the second time. I look around the room I'm sitting in right now, and if I had to walk out of the room and tell you what's in it, I would miss the majority of it. If I came back and studied it again, I'd probably remember more stuff, but forget some of the things I mentioned the first time.

This is a fascinating phenomenon itself, and the mix of player memory, player notes, and DM reminders (and notes) are all valid parts of "simulating" this, even if you're not trying to.

There are plenty of times where the players will call me out on something, "wait, last time we talked to him he said..." and then I have to see if my notes and memory are sufficient. Often they aren't.

Depending on circumstances, the actions and statements of the players, the dice, and many other factors, I might, as a DM, determine that your character forgot something. How likely this is will depend on that specific scenario.

In this specific scenario, I think that how it played out is reasonable. I have a strong sense that my players would agree. You can't turn that into a blanket statement for all scenarios. Sometimes the DM will just remind them, sometimes it will be a subtle reminder, others a more obvious one, and in some cases there is no reminder at all.

We like to get into the characters' heads, and enjoy a game that simulates life in a manner that makes sense to us. YMMV, but this particular scenario (which I will bring up in the next game) is one that I think we would really enjoy. As DM and players.

Ilbranteloth

 

[Ilbranteloth]

The ring and suit of armor aren't completely unrelated items?

Not when it's physically attached to the armor. Then it's largely a decoration, even if it has other intrinsic value. They attempted to remove it to start with. So they knew at that point it was part of the gauntlets. At least until they determine a way to remove it.

Ilbranteloth

 

[seebs]

So, I agree that there's a reasonable approach to this sort of thing, and as a DM I'll often remind players of important things they may have forgotten. Part of it is taking into account the players themselves. For example, I don't expect the same things from my 12-year-old daughter as I do somebody who has been playing for 20 years.

The main thing I'd say is, given that the party had specifically discussed the ring separately, it seems pretty clear to me that the players were thinking of the ring as a thing which was not part of the armor.

To put it another way: The fact that the players were upset about it, and that the DM framed it at least somewhat as punishing one of the players for "not paying enough attention", makes me think it was done in an adversarial way with intent to upset a player, so yes, I think the GM screwed up.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

It certainly sounded to me like the DM intentionally misled the player to take advantage of the fact that the player was distracted.

I think the big thing is, the ring is not "part of the suit of armor", even if you argue that the gauntlets are.

As long as it's attached it is part of the suit of armor. Just as if a holy symbol was attached to the breast plate.

Nor do I think that the DM intentionally misled the player. From the time that they picked up the armor to the time they sold it, all it would have taken was a single player to say "let's sell the armor but keep the gauntlets and the ring." At any time. It wasn't just a single moment when somebody was playing on their phone, it was an extended period of time, with a subtle reminder by the DM.

Ilbranteloth

 

[MostlyDm]

It certainly sounded to me like the DM intentionally misled the player to take advantage of the fact that the player was distracted.

I think the big thing is, the ring is not "part of the suit of armor", even if you argue that the gauntlets are.

In the OP the ring is described as being physically attached to the gauntlet. It would take physical effort to detach them. So, yeah, in this case the ring was part of the armor. You may disagree with this decision (I'm not a huge fan myself) but right now you're acting like it doesn't exist.

 

[MostlyDm]

I think there are also some people in this discussion who categorically reject a particular kind of traditional D&D/Roleplaying, where the players are expected to keep notes and pay close attention, and the GM does very little to assist them or hold their hand through this process.

GMs of this school will not usually remind you of important data. If they tell you a prophecy and you don't write it down, they aren't going to read it off for you when you forget what it said 2 months later. They may also refuse to remind you of your deadline for the end of the world, or the name of the guy you're looking for, or whatever.

GMs of this style aren't going to show you a map that leads you out of a dungeon, so if you aren't mapping as you go... Good luck with that.

It's a particular style, not for everyone. Not usually one that I employ, either. But a lot of people prefer it.

This situation seems like one of the above writ small. I think a lot of the people in the two camps coming down hard on one side or the other probably have a strong opinion about the merits of the style of GMing detailed above.