D&D 5E Was I in the wrong?

[FrogReaver]

I find it quite funny that a lot of the posters here are more offended about what happened then the players that it happened too.

Have you heard from any of those players here?

 

[Pandaemoni]

I find it quite funny that a lot of the posters here are more offended about what happened then the players that it happened too.

That may just be the internet for you. I think we have all, from time to time, gotten more worked up about "controversies" online than we ever would in the flesh and blood world outside.



https://xkcd.com/386/

 

[Yardiff]

Have you heard from any of those players here?

No, I'd actually like to hear from one. All we have to go on is the OP and by his accounts most of his players were fine. Unless of you are calling him a lair when he posted it.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

All we have to go on is the OP and by his accounts most of his players were fine. Unless of you are calling him a lair when he posted it.

I wouldn't necessarily say that I think the OP is lying about what his players told him, but I know that there could be some amount of the players telling the DM "it's fine" when what they really mean is "It's fine in so much as I have decided I'd rather play in your game even while you do things that really annoy me because I dislike the idea of the alternative, figuring out how to find another DM, even more than I dislike the annoying things you've done." so the information isn't as reliable as it would be if gained directly from one of the players when the DM isn't "listening."

 

[Aura]

I don't recall anything about the PC making a very high Int check to value the armor, although perhaps I missed that (in a subsequent post??).

Here is the post I think he's referring to:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...wrong/page14&p=6826977&viewfull=1#post6826977

 

[Aura]

Agree to disagree, I suppose. I don't recall anything about the PC making a very high Int check to value the armor, although perhaps I missed that (in a subsequent post??). If he did that at the time, I'd certainly be more forgiving...although I'd still be inclined to say "You begin to remove the Gauntlets and the embedded ring when the blacksmith says 'Whoa, whoa, you agreed to sell me this whole set, where do you think you're going with those? A deal is a deal and those are mine now, son.'"

Were it my character, in any event, I'd have my character take the blame and play that for comedic effect--that the character made this awful deal because he was inattentive, and the blacksmith was cutting me no slack.

If he made the Int roll before the sale (and I'm pretty sure he did), then it's just as much a mistake for the DM to withhold the information until after the sale as not mention it at all. On the off chance he decided to appraise it after taking the money, then sure.

As for reactions to what happened, I can see it raising some concerns from a variety of people. I've seen people yell over less than this, and I've seen people take abuse in a game with little complaint. Personally, I can't say I'd be terribly happy about it but I avoid actual argument at the table with a sitting DM. State your case, and he either agrees or not, but it's over either way. I generally feel that most DMs are doing the best job they can, and grant the initial assumption that any mistakes made along the way are in good faith.

That said, I feel a DM apologizing for what is, in retrospect, a bad call isn't out of the question. I know I have. However, I've found demanding apologies from people to be generally non-productive, so I wouldn't call a DM out on it. I'm also against ret-conning it unless truly necessary, and this event doesn't really rise to that level. In the grand scheme of things, it's really just a little bit of loot.

 

[Maxperson]

rule number one. ThE player determines his characters actions. The player determined his character would offer do to sell the armor and notthe ring or gauntlets. His character offered to sell the armor to the blacksmith. The blacksmith bought the armor for a price that was fair for the armor only. Character and player both believe the only the armor was sold. It's only later that it's revealed the player actually sold more than he explicitly stated that he sold.

The problem is the dm didn't trick the character. He took control of the character and characters actions without the players consent.

Not even close. All the items were described as a set and bundled by the PCs as a set. The blacksmith asked if they were selling the set. The DM did not take control of the PC in any way.

 

[Maxperson]

I wouldn't necessarily say that I think the OP is lying about what his players told him, but I know that there could be some amount of the players telling the DM "it's fine" when what they really mean is "It's fine in so much as I have decided I'd rather play in your game even while you do things that really annoy me because I dislike the idea of the alternative, figuring out how to find another DM, even more than I dislike the annoying things you've done." so the information isn't as reliable as it would be if gained directly from one of the players when the DM isn't "listening."

There's no reason to assume that.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

There's no reason to assume that.

Assume what? I didn't assume anything in the post you quoted.

 

[Aura]

Not even close. All the items were described as a set and bundled by the PCs as a set. The blacksmith asked if they were selling the set. The DM did not take control of the PC in any way.

Actually, the blacksmith asked, "Are you looking to sell the whole thing?" I find the set argument here you're attempting to give unconvincing, and not just because it doesn't actually line up with what the blacksmith said. The reason is sets are not things, they are definitions. I can define any two discrete items into a set, or out of a set. To make matters worse, what gamers call 'plate armor' for convenience is actually multiple discrete items, fitting what most would call a set. It can be murky language if not clearly defined. It also makes the blacksmith's question generally unrevealing, and not the tip off the DM hoped for. Fun with ambiguity!

So we have a DM who made an error, and is dropping an ambiguous hint instead of giving the obvious sensory information that would, by necessity, come with attempting to appraise an item (and doing well, as the ranger did). Perhaps the promise of the plot hook had his attention and he missed the here and now of the blacksmith scene. Hard to say.

Oh, by the by, how does he do well in the appraise check and not only be denied sensory input, but the actual answer? The DM didn't tell him it's worth far more than the blacksmith is offering, did he? Can you explain that without equivocation?