D&D 5E Was I in the wrong?

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[ExploderWizard]

"I'm going to get the set of armor appraised by the smith and then sell if it's a good price"

"roll INT for the appraisal to see if it's a fair deal for the set of armor"

*roll well*

"You think it's a good price"

"Ok I sell the armor."

"GOTCHA! You didn't just sell the armor! You also sold the gauntlet and ring that weren't part of the armor set, which I specifically stated wasn't earlier and the group stated they didn't want to sell! And I did it because THAT GUY is on his cell phone during the game!"

But wait, he didn't even tell the group that much.

When the NPC asked if he meant ALL of it then any player actually paying attention would ask what he meant by that.

The player assumed that it was only the armor. The DM assumed that the player remembered that the party bundled everything. The NPC asking if the ranger if he was sure that he intended to sell ALL of it was the DM reminding the player that they had bundled stuff. The fact that the player didn't pick up on this was his mistake.

 

[ExploderWizard]

His refusal to use the rules of the game he's playing doesn't change the fact that they exist.

Um.....yes it does, for this DMs campaign. Thats what house rules mean. All of the players were well aware of how item identification worked in this campaign.

 

[Noctem]

As was pointed out, many, many times, you are focusing on the wrong thing. The DM in post #1 first explained the situation; the annoyance was over Mr. Cellphone's reaction, which was not the same as the rest of the groups (in the end). This is what brought the whole issue to the table - the person who didn't accompany the Ranger, who didn't involve himself with social interactions, and who didn't pay attention, is the only one who is really annoyed. That's the issue.

Second, you don't deal with the extremely full narrative in post #134. For example, Rastrak goes into detail as to how magic item identification works in his campaign. Something communicated that you should try and understand before accusing someone of being malicious, or knowingly trying to hurt other people WITH ALL CAPS. Instead of attempting to incorporate that information, you just cite inaplicable standards.

If you're not trying to help, you're a part of the problem. You don't incorporate new information; you just argue the same points.

I understand there's a thrilling disintegrate v. wildshape thread that could be resurrected?

Incorrect, he stated the group multiple times was unhappy with what he has done. However, he's focusing on the guy with the cell phone because that's his justification for his actions. You're falling for the justification doesn't make it legitimate or even relevant.

Magic item identification isn't even the issue. Stop trying to bring it up to muddy the waters. It was stated in passing to explain that information should have been shared by the rules. If he doesn't want to follow the rules then he has a responsibility to create an alternate means to relay the information to his group, which I believe he did when he described the ring and gauntlet as being like the one ring from LOTR.

But hey, if you're going to reduce yourself to pointing out that he doesn't use the magical item ID rules from 5e in his home game and then try to dismiss my posts with a flippant reference to another thread then that's fine. It just means you have nothing of value to contribute either.

You stated you don't think he did anything wrong. Great. Good for you. I think he maliciously screwed over a group of people he calls his "best friends" via in game passive aggressive bs, which totally failed to address the out of character problem he has with a specific player; which he then used to justify his actions while at the same time seeking reassurance online that he did nothing wrong.

Agree to disagree.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Noctem]

When the NPC asked if he meant ALL of it then any player actually paying attention would ask what he meant by that.

The player assumed that it was only the armor. The DM assumed that the player remembered that the party bundled everything. The NPC asking if the ranger if he was sure that he intended to sell ALL of it was the DM reminding the player that they had bundled stuff. The fact that the player didn't pick up on this was his mistake.

But the ranger was paying attention. This was not cell phone guy remember? The ranger and the group had clearly stated they were selling the "set of armor", not the ring or gauntlet. So why then does the DM maliciously have the ranger sell items he (or the group) wasn't intending on selling in a way that prevents everyone else at the table (the entire group, not just 1 person) from understanding that he's screwing them over?

How the party spent 2 days carrying the armor is irrelevant. Clearly the party as a whole intended to only sell the set of armor and not the gauntlet + ring. They wanted to keep the gauntlet + ring because the DM had made a reference to LOTR earlier which hinted that it was magical in nature or at the very least not meant to be simply sold off. The DM even made it clear that the gauntlet and ring WERE NOT part of the armor set.

Nice try though.

 

[Noctem]

And I agree that this perfectly sums up your posts. We'll leave it at that.

Sure, you taking only a portion of a sentence I wrote and ignoring the rest of the post seems to perfectly sum up your level of defense of the DM's actions. We'll leave it at that indeed.

 

[Charles Rampant]

I would say that this kind of action - as described in the first post, not having read the entire thread past page 12 or so - is perhaps not something that is technically wrong, but it is definitely one that seems designed to annoy players, rather than give them more fun. More fun does not equate simply to more stuff, and I don't mean that by taking the treasure away the DM was wrong in general, but I mean that the way this went down seems to be designed to annoy, not entertain. I can easily imagine ways that the DM could have the players lose treasure without it being a dick move and with it adding entertainment and interest to the campaign; to not fully describe the scene, and to use this kind of a "Gotcha!" moment is not one of them. This seems simply a punitive removal of stuff from the group in an underhanded way.

The shorter way to put it is: I would not have done this, were I the DM. Ignoring the group's reaction, ignoring the phone user's attention span, this is not something that I would regard as being fun for either me or my players.

 

[ExploderWizard]

But the ranger was paying attention. This was not cell phone guy remember? The ranger and the group had clearly stated they were selling the "set of armor", not the ring or gauntlet. So why then does the DM maliciously have the ranger sell items he (or the group) wasn't intending on selling in a way that prevents everyone else at the table (the entire group, not just 1 person) from understanding that he's screwing them over?

The ranger stated his intention. When he got to the actual interaction he did not properly execute his intention. Its called screwing the pooch and it happens. It happens more often to those who aren't paying attention and fail to recognize warning signals.

The DM didn't "have" the ranger do anything. The sale was role played out. The ranger had the opportunity to pause and ask for clarification but did not do so.

How the party spent 2 days carrying the armor is irrelevant. Clearly the party as a whole intended to only sell the set of armor and not the gauntlet + ring. They wanted to keep the gauntlet + ring because the DM had made a reference to LOTR earlier which hinted that it was magical in nature or at the very least not meant to be simply sold off. The DM even made it clear that the gauntlet and ring WERE NOT part of the armor set.

Nice try though.

Yes it was clear the items were not part of the armor, which is why the decision to bundle them together wasn't the best idea.

Intent <> Execution

A D&D party may intend to do many things. Some of these things may go as the party intended, others may not.

 

[ThirdWizard]

The ranger stated his intention. When he got to the actual interaction he did not properly execute his intention.

In games of make believe, intents are the actions.