D&D 5E Was I in the wrong?

[pemerton]

There's more to the game that looting fallen enemies and then splitting the loot.

Sure. So why are you telling us what a great adventure it would be to loot the (now enemy) blacksmith?

As I said, I can think of dozens of more engaging scenarios. I'm sure some of them could be organically integrated into the "story so far".

 

[pemerton]

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.

So can I. The ring of X-ray vision is one of them.

But I don't recall the referee mentioning any of them (eg that the blacksmith had such a ring, or that the blacksmith took the armour into another room to examine it, etc)

you'd be surprised at how many things in plain sight that we don't see.

But the ranger was - as far as I can tell - aware that the gauntlets and ring were special, and not part of the armour set (as the players, and their PCs, were conceiving of it). So this is not a case of missing something in plain sight. It's a case of the ranger not having seen the armour that the blacksmith inspected.

Which takes us back to the question of how the blacksmith got to see what the ranger did not. As you say, this can happen - but the GM hasn't told us how it did happen, and my feeling from the two actual play reports is that the GM didn't indicate to the players, either, that the blacksmith was inspecting the armour in some secret manner. When (as per the OP) the GM tells us that "The armorsmith checked it over and when he noticed the ring he casually asked if the whole thing was for sale", I don't think he is implying that the checking it over happened in some covert fashion.

This is why I find the situation puzzling. The ranger cared about the gauntlets and ring, and - as far as I can tell - could see the gauntlets and ring, yet was deemed to have sold them out of absentmindedness. As I posted upthread, I think it's quite different from (for instance) the ranger selling the whole bundle as a job lot and forgetting what has been bundled into it.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure. So why are you telling us what a great adventure it would be to loot the (now enemy) blacksmith?

Who said anything about looting? I said get the items back. That doesn't mean you have to attack and kill him, then take the stuff.

 

[pemerton]

Who said anything about looting? I said get the items back. That doesn't mean you have to attack and kill him, then take the stuff.

So, whereas robbery is the pits, burglary is the height of sophisticated RPGing?

Personally, I'm not feeling the force of the contrast.

 

[MostlyDm]

It took me a while to realize this, but once you wise up and realize that the DM's job is absolutely *not* to "Be the boss" then your game will be far better for it. Your job as DM is to submit to the players wants without allowing any one character to monopolize the story, adapt to the character actions driving the story, and keep your responses within the boundaries of the agreed upon ruleset and in the best interest of the player's story.

That's certainly one way to run a game. It can be a lot of fun.

When I run one-shot games for my nephew's birthday parties (something he's requested since the age of 9), I've typically approached the game with this mindset.

But a lot of times, I'm not running a game for a group of kids with little or no D&D experience... And some adult players (myself included) would be pretty bored if every game was one where the DM's job was to submit to our whims and create a world that revolved around us.

My favorite games are ones where the world simply is. Where the DM's job is to create a believable and interesting place populated by thousands of interesting people and features... Who all have their own goals and agendas. Most of which don't involve the players at all, unless the players choose to get involved or became involved due to earlier decisions.

The players are the stars of their own story of course... But that's nearly tautological (barring overbearing DM fiat). They aren't the stars of the world. The world exists, and the players live in it. Whatever stories exist do so because the characters created them, not because the DM tailored the world to fit them.

I'm not going to say the OP did a good job. I agree there was some miscommunication occurring and a failure to describe the scene as clearly as possible.

But the idea that the DM shouldn't let events like this occur because there are more interesting things to do than get stuff back from a blacksmith...? If that's the case, go do those things and leave your stuff with the blacksmith. S**t happens. It's not the end of the world. It doesn't have to be the job of the DM to ensure the characters are always pursuing the most exciting story... Some players prefer to make those for themselves.

 

[Maxperson]

So, whereas robbery is the pits, burglary is the height of sophisticated RPGing?

Personally, I'm not feeling the force of the contrast.

You seem like a very bright guy, so I can't help but wonder why you exclude the fun stuff like the blacksmith needing them for something and working the items plus more into aid from the PC's and other adventures, choosing instead to only list the dull stuff. It seems disingenuous of you.

 

[pemerton]

You seem like a very bright guy, so I can't help but wonder why you exclude the fun stuff like the blacksmith needing them for something and working the items plus more into aid from the PC's and other adventures, choosing instead to only list the dull stuff. It seems disingenuous of you.

I'm just relying on the OP remark that "they want the items back and are planning the best way to steal them".

But a fetch quest for the alchemist in order to recover items that we could have had anyway wouldn't thrill me much either.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm just relying on the OP remark that "they want the items back and are planning the best way to steal them".

And yet you fail to rely on this OP remark. Why are you ignoring him here and going with him there?

How do I plan to "solve" or rather, develop the situation?
Well, I will mix in a previous plot with this one. Before the whole undead dungeon debacle, the party faced a demon that was plaguing the countryside. Long story short, they killed the demon and the gnoll that worked with it for their more powerful master (an even stronger demon in the abyssal plane). The demon has held a major grudge against the party since then. The armor they recovered is "cursed" in that it is linked to the demon and anyone wearing it receives power but might become possessed by the demon as well. They had also sold the armor to the magic shop owner. The female half-orc that visited both the brothers (their sister) is a warrior that will be wearing the armor without realizing what it is. She'll be possessed and the demon will try to get revenge on the party. Depending on how they solve the situation, the half-orcs might reward the party by giving the items back, possibly with an added bonus.
I feel that this way, the plot will progress and again...depending on how they solve the situation it could lead to them being on friendly or hostile terms with the half-orc brothers.

But a fetch quest for the alchemist in order to recover items that we could have had anyway wouldn't thrill me much either.

Then do something else. There are easily as many different adventures for this as there are ways to play a 5 Int.

 

[pemerton]

The whole set-up strikes me as a very GM-driven game of the sort that personally I don't enjoy all that much. That doesn't change the fact that I regard this particular episode as a particularly egregious instance - as I've said before, I don't see how the smith saw the ring and gauntlets though the ranger, who was interested in them as distinct items, did not.

Even within this campaign approach, I suspect the players might have enjoyed the demon-armour scenario with their new items as much as they will enjoy it without those items.

 

[Reflected_Shadows]

Me to inattentive player: "As a reminder you have those gauntlets with the ring on them right there. The smith oodles at them."

At absolute bare minimum:

"I thought you were selling the entire armor bundle, including the gauntlet with the ring? No? Okay, you didn't sell it then."

You pulled a "Gotcha" to punish an inattentive player, which is a cardinal sin of DMing in my opinion. Shame on you, sir. Never do that.