D&D 5E Was I in the wrong?

[FrogReaver]

That's definitely a new though. Can I get an example of these contradictions

Well, when the various posts from the original poster are somewhat contradictory - I pointed out several quotes that made it seem pretty clear that the ranger didn't know about the ring or the gauntlets at all, I don't think we can ever really "settle" this. I agree with you that one possible read of the information presented would mean that the ranger probably knew about the ring at the very least. But another read can also come to a different conclusion. Unless the ranger, or the DM after verifying it with the ranger, reports back, we won't. But I also think it doesn't really matter.

But I'm not attempting to settle anything. As I've said before, whatever happened at that table is really between the folks at that table. I'm looking at it from a bigger picture as how I (or others) can determine whether a scenario like this is usable in my campaign, and how to do it in a way that won't result in there being a question of it being fair. For me, I think it's perfectly acceptable, and I have learned some things that will help with my game in similar situations, as well as other scenarios that have nothing to do with this particular circumstance. So I'm very happy with where the discussion has led. YMMV.

I don't disagree that it's important not to disaggregate the party's knowledge and intentions from the table norm. I really don't think we have enough info to know if that's what really happened at their table, but again I don't really care. That's their table and their problem. And again I've learned quite a bit to help ensure that doesn't happen at my table.

Ilbranteloth

 

[Ilbranteloth]

That's definitely a new though. Can I get an example of these contradictions

An example:

The ranger returns to the rest of the party that was waiting by the temple. He gives them the news about finally having money and they ask him about the gauntlets and ring. He seems confused, not realizing a ring was involved in the equation (he either wasn't listening or had forgotten about it).

The others all remembered and acknowledged the ring being stuck on the armor, yet the ranger somehow thought they had it stored somewhere else.
Simply put, I believe he just wasn't careful enough. This is also the same person that didn't even realize there was a set of magical gauntlets until we talked about it the next day.

Did he not know a ring was involved at all, or did he think it was someplace else? Most of it is a lack of clarity than outright contradictions which is why I say "somewhat." Reading over the exact posts again, they could be saying the same thing, perhaps not.

But here's the thing, a number of people are getting hung up on parsing what was said and trying to prove their point one way or the other as "right." There is no right answer. There is only what's right for your table, which may be different than what's right for his, or for mine. While I've used examples from the posts, it's for the purpose of showing that there is enough evidence in what's been posted (or perhaps not enough) that there is a lot of ambiguity in the scenario. This is partially the result of what has/hasn't been reported. But it's also probably because of the actual information presented within the game.

So when somebody says something along the lines of "there is no way the ranger couldn't have seen the gauntlets or the ring when the smith is examining it," I say that's incorrect. There are plenty of ways that could happen. Perhaps the original description was lacking, so there was a disconnect in what the player was thinking and the DM, but the scene as it played out is reasonable.

The DM asked if he was in the wrong. I say, "no." There is nothing wrong with what happened, but it could have been handled better, with more clarity, perhaps with a few more opportunities to catch the smith at his game. I disagree that the DM should have said something specifically about the gauntlets or ring, nor do I think he should have reminded them. Others disagree.

I don't really care if others disagree. I expect it. I welcome it. If we all agreed, we'd have boring discussions and none of us would learn anything. My players agree that it's an interesting turn of events, and would welcome that sort of scenario in our game. That's all I need to know about the "right or wrong" part. Now it's a question of how I can improve my abilities as a DM to make sure that at the end of the scenario I'm not asking if I made a mistake.

Ilbranteloth

 

[Maxperson]

I was talking not just about popular usage, or popular usage among Americans, but the more serious discussions in the philosophical literature.

Philosophy contains a lot of what ifs and supposition. It can be helpful if you don't take it too seriously. Philosophers tackle riveting questions like, "How do you know if you are awake? You could be dreaming right now."

 

[Aura]

One thing your missing is that when the smith saw the ring (which could still very easily be concealed) he stopped removing pieces from the bundle and then asked the ranger 'all of it'. This fit with the smith being shady.

(Note: Ilbranteloth had a similar objection.)

This is more storytelling not indicated by the OP's description. This scenario basically re-writes the scene. The more effort you infer the DM went through to justify not giving the ranger a simple perception roll, the more implausible it is that he cannot remember a whit of it when writing in his own defense.

Also, this doesn't match what we do know. The blacksmith studies the armor, and comes up with an offer. The ranger doesn't like it, then makes his appraisal. THEN the blacksmith notices the ring. They are quite far into the scene at this point.

Question: Do either of you really believe this scenario happened? Follow on for Yardiff, which of these now four scenarios you've spoken in favor of do you believe really happened?

 

[Maxperson]

Also, this doesn't match what we do know. The blacksmith studies the armor, and comes up with an offer. The ranger doesn't like it, then makes his appraisal. THEN the blacksmith notices the ring. They are quite far into the scene at this point.

The armorsmith checked it over and when he noticed the ring he casually asked if the whole thing was for sale, making sure not to mention the ring (he didn't even know the gauntlets were magical).

The ranger made an int check, not an appraise check. Nothing is said there about whether he examined it on the spot or was going by memory, having seen the armor before. We still don't know if he saw the ring there or not.

The Ranger first chooses to go to the magic shop, but the rest of the party remind him that they do not have any money for identification spells. He goes to the blacksmith instead.
At the blacksmith (a half-orc they already know from before) he presents the bundled up armor. The blacksmith studies it, making note that the armor is very damaged (from the battles) and it would lower the price. At the mention of the price being lowered, the ranger asks if he can make a int check to learn how much such an armor would go for, he rolls well. The half-orc notices the magical ring and immediately asks "Are you looking to sell the whole thing?"

 

[Aura]

The ranger made an int check, not an appraise check. Nothing is said there about whether he examined it on the spot or was going by memory, having seen the armor before. We still don't know if he saw the ring there or not.

OK, first, that wasn't the point of why I mentioned it, whatsoever. I was illustrating the flow of events and how I feel it didn't work in favor of the now-modified, and completely unstated/unremembered by the OP despite being very specific 'starts to unbundle armor, sees the ring, then stops in mid-action to conceal it'. There is a huge occam's razor problem here.

 

[Maxperson]

OK, first, that wasn't the point of why I mentioned it, whatsoever. I was illustrating the flow of events and how I feel it didn't work in favor of the now-modified, and completely unstated/unremembered by the OP despite being very specific 'starts to unbundle armor, sees the ring, then stops in mid-action to conceal it'. There is a huge occam's razor problem here.

No. No there isn't. An expert like a blacksmith probably doesn't need to examine a suit of full plate inch by inch to figure out what it's worth. He very easily could have left it partially bundled and made an offer, or kept the gauntlets out of sight as he appraised the rest. He also didn't stop to conceal it. He just stopped at that point and made an offer.

 

[Aura]

No. No there isn't. An expert like a blacksmith probably doesn't need to examine a suit of full plate inch by inch to figure out what it's worth. He very easily could have left it partially bundled and made an offer, or kept the gauntlets out of sight as he appraised the rest. He also didn't stop to conceal it. He just stopped at that point and made an offer.

That's not what I was talking about in regard to the occam's razor problem. I'm saying this entire spiel is rather complex, and as a conjecture, not as strong as a much simpler explanation. The addition of yet another step to makes it even weaker. To add further to this problem, the DM doesn't seem to remember one iota of it, even though it would strengthen his case. Incredible.

Didn't you say you'd have allowed a perception roll?

 

[Aura]

Minor wrinkle: A few have referred to the blacksmith as 'expert'. Is there any basis for this? (Other than it's now needed to make the story work.) I can find none, other than that he was a blacksmith.

 

[Maxperson]

That's not what I was talking about in regard to the occam's razor problem. I'm saying this entire spiel is rather complex, and as a conjecture, not as strong as a much simpler explanation. The addition of yet another step to makes it even weaker. To add further to this problem, the DM doesn't seem to remember one iota of it, even though it would strengthen his case. Incredible.

The simplest answer is not that the ranger saw the ring and gauntlets. He saw the stuff is as simple as he didn't see the stuff.

Didn't you say you'd have allowed a perception roll?

No. I said I'd have given an intelligence check to remember that they bundled everything together. I also said that I ca understand where a DM did not allow that check.