D&D 5E Was I in the wrong?

[Maxperson]

Is there an assumption that, absent this "adventure", the campaign would have come to an end?

For my part, I can think of dozens of more interesting things to do in a D&D game than getting items back from a blacksmith whom I otherwise wouldn't even care about except that the GM mishandled an episode of selling equipment.

No. There's no such assumption. However, there doesn't need to be. All that needs to be present is a greater amount of fun and adventure than Player: "I sell the armor." DM: "Okay. Get 1000 gp."

That you can think of more interesting things doesn't matter. You can't guarantee that those things are more interesting to these particular players, only that YOU think they're more interesting, or that those things + this particular adventure is greater than those things - this particular adventure.

 

[pemerton]

All that needs to be present is a greater amount of fun and adventure than Player: "I sell the armor." DM: "Okay. Get 1000 gp."

That you can think of more interesting things doesn't matter. You can't guarantee that those things are more interesting to these particular players

No, I can't, but I can make a hypothesis based on reasonable grounds. If I can think of many adventures more interesting than robbing a blacksmith to recover gear that I ought to have had anyway, probably so can those players.

And I don't agree with your test: the test is not "Is this more interesting than something else I might have thought of?" but more like "Is this the most engaging adventure idea currently available?"

 

[pemerton]

Remember, in the scenario provided, the ranger never actually looked at the armor other than as a set tied up in a bundle.

This is why I asked, upthread, whether the blacksmith had a ring of X-ray vision. If not, how did he see the gauntlets and ring yet the ranger not see them?

 

[Maxperson]

No, I can't, but I can make a hypothesis based on reasonable grounds. If I can think of many adventures more interesting than robbing a blacksmith to recover gear that I ought to have had anyway, probably so can those players.

And I don't agree with your test: the test is not "Is this more interesting than something else I might have thought of?" but more like "Is this the most engaging adventure idea currently available?"

I disagree. There's more to adventures than it being the most engaging idea available. The adventure still needs to flow organically from what is going on in the campaign. You might have a more engaging idea, but if it doesn't flow from what is going on and is disconnected, it can do more harm than good to use it.

I often have to shelve amazing ideas for future use because they don't fit what is going on in the current campaign.

 

[psychophipps]

No, I can't, but I can make a hypothesis based on reasonable grounds. If I can think of many adventures more interesting than robbing a blacksmith to recover gear that I ought to have had anyway, probably so can those players.

And I don't agree with your test: the test is not "Is this more interesting than something else I might have thought of?" but more like "Is this the most engaging adventure idea currently available?"

And there's the rub. You can make all of the "perfectly reasonable response to the situation" discussion you want. At the end the day the players, the most important people in the game, left the situation with a "WTH?!? Over." instead of excitedly recounting the Battle Against Evil they just won and figuring out how to split the loot.

 

[Maxperson]

And there's the rub. You can make all of the "perfectly reasonable response to the situation" discussion you want. At the end the day the players, the most important people in the game, left the situation with a "WTH?!? Over." instead of excitedly recounting the Battle Against Evil they just won and figuring out how to split the loot.

There's more to the game that looting fallen enemies and then splitting the loot. What happened was reasonable, even if not everyone here would do it. What happened can also spawn a great adventure.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

This is why I asked, upthread, whether the blacksmith had a ring of X-ray vision. If not, how did he see the gauntlets and ring yet the ranger not see them?

Because the best I can tell from the description, the barbarian handed the ranger a bundle of armor, which he simply took with him. He didn't examine it, or anything of that nature. He saw the bundle of armor, of course, but that doesn't mean he noticed the ring or that the gauntlets were different. Once the armor was tied up, whether the gauntlets were visible or not is unknown. The blacksmith, on the other hand, did examine it. I can think of all sorts of possibilities for him to prevent the ranger from seeing it at that point. If I was DM, I would have given the ranger a passive Perception check against the blacksmith's Stealth, or perhaps Deception, unless the ranger was specifically suspicious of the blacksmith. Then he might have rolled a check.

One of my daughter's favorite shows is Brain Games and you'd be surprised at how many things in plain sight that we don't see.

But unless the ranger or the party (who spoke up about other things) mentioned that they were doing something different with the gauntlets, the possibility exists. Part of the problem I have here (not necessarily you) is that some people seem to think that any clue that wasn't enough to guess, or an outright "what about the gauntlets" is insufficient. I disagree with that. They made a mistake, the blacksmith attempted to capitalize on it, and they had an opportunity to figure it out.

My only potential criticism is that I would have had a much more involved interaction, with additional checks. At its heart, though, it's a simple Deception or Stealth vs Perception check.

Ilbranteloth

 

[psychophipps]

My only potential criticism is that I would have had a much more involved interaction, with additional checks. At its heart, though, it's a simple Deception or Stealth vs Perception check.

Ilbranteloth

My only issue is that it didn't seem to serve a real in-story purpose. I can see doing this if it leads to something that drives the story like the break-in later revealing the blacksmith being an agent of a secret cabal to overthrow the local kingdom or something, but "Guess you learned a lesson, huh?" is a really lousy answer used to justify poor storytelling for far too long in our hobby.

But hey, I'm an overbearing, opinionated wanker(tm) so take my thoughts with a grain a salt... *shrugs*

 

[Maxperson]

My only issue is that it didn't seem to serve a real in-story purpose. I can see doing this if it leads to something that drives the story like the break-in later revealing the blacksmith being an agent of a secret cabal to overthrow the local kingdom or something, but "Guess you learned a lesson, huh?" is a really lousy answer used to justify poor storytelling for far too long in our hobby.

But hey, I'm an overbearing, opinionated wanker(tm) so take my thoughts with a grain a salt... *shrugs*

Things that I don't plan on having story purpose often develop into story purpose based on the outcome of game play. That it wasn't intended for story has no bearing on whether it will end up being story.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

My only issue is that it didn't seem to serve a real in-story purpose. I can see doing this if it leads to something that drives the story like the break-in later revealing the blacksmith being an agent of a secret cabal to overthrow the local kingdom or something, but "Guess you learned a lesson, huh?" is a really lousy answer used to justify poor storytelling for far too long in our hobby.

But hey, I'm an overbearing, opinionated wanker(tm) so take my thoughts with a grain a salt... *shrugs*

No, you're not.

But, this is dependent partially on how you develop your story. My campaigns are largely written by the players. Directly with the actions they take, and indirectly when I work ideas they come up with into events outside of their control. And believe me, no matter what I think is likely to happen...it doesn't.

This, like much of the game, is just something that happened. For now. It might have a greater importance in the future, it might not.

Part of what we like is the everyday normalcy of much of the characters' lives between the fantastical of being an adventurer. It grounds the campaign and makestrel it feel more real. Others might find it boring. I've played with a lot of people over the years though and have all enjoyed it.

Of course I've played with other groups with different playing styles outside of my main campaign too. Many of them probably wouldn't.

Ilbranteloth