D&D 5E Was I in the wrong?

[Maxperson]

Are you saying that speaking clearly and forthrightly is equivalent to treating people like children? Because I find that a little difficult to believe.

And, since it came up in a different post of yours: remember that the person who sold the armor wasn't the person who bundled the armor, and (unless I'm mistaken) neither of those people was "Mr. Cellphone."

No. I'm saying all the people were present for the bundling, regardless of who did it. All players knew that the item were bundled as a set. A mistake on the part of the ranger is just that, a mistake on the part of the ranger. The DM doesn't need to coddle the players and make sure that they can never make mistakes. Let them make their mistakes and then play out the aftermath of those errors.

Assuming ill of your fellow posters does your position even less good than the sarcasm did Lowkey's.

I made no assumptions. I've read this entire thread and more than one poster here has acted like that.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

No. I'm saying all the people were present for the bundling, regardless of who did it. All players knew that the item were bundled as a set. A mistake on the part of the ranger is just that, a mistake on the part of the ranger. The DM doesn't need to coddle the players and make sure that they can never make mistakes. Let them make their mistakes and then play out the aftermath of those errors.

Speaking clearly and forthrightly is not the same as coddling--unless you believe you can demonstrate that the former is always the latter?

I made no assumptions. I've read this entire thread and more than one poster here has acted like that.

Don't see how you could possibly have seen people act that way, since you're talking about actions that have not happened yet.

You've seen people take a very, very dim or even hostile view of what the OP did. You have no more right to assume to know the minds of other posters, and hostile intent thereof, than anyone has to know the mind of the OP at the time that this particular action occurred. If the others are wrong for assuming they know what is or was going on in Randrak's head, you are just as wrong for assuming what's going on in other posters' heads--including the assumption that absolutely anything Randrak says will be interpreted into something horrific.

 

[Aura]

I don't think people are saying players should be 'coddled', Max. You risk straw-manning people with that sort of language.

I said it once, and perhaps not loudly enough, but I still maintain the seller should have had a chance to notice (or noticed outright) the gauntlets and ring when he pulls the items out in a separate scene. This is true even if he wasn't paying attention at the point it was bundled up. This is particularly true now that we find the he was actually engaged with assessing the value of the armor and he put an Int roll into it.

If I remember properly, you originally agreed with this, or am I thinking of someone else? Because, it seems you've hardened your opinion since then.

Anyway, what it looks like happened is this:
(1) The players made a mistake
(2) The DM made a determination about the consequences of said mistake
(3) The players took further actions that put them in a position of potentially noticing said mistake
(4) The DM made a mistake when he failed to notice (3)
(5) The action was resolved with the consequences enforced

Finding out that things seem alright for the gaming group in question doesn't objectively mean a mistake didn't happen. It merely means (and thankfully) that the group is going to roll with it.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't think people are saying players should be 'coddled', Max. You risk straw-manning people with that sort of language.

I said it once, and perhaps not loudly enough, but I still maintain the seller should have had a chance to notice (or noticed outright) the gauntlets and ring when he pulls the items out in a separate scene. This is true even if he wasn't paying attention at the point it was bundled up. This is particularly true now that we find the he was actually engaged with assessing the value of the armor and he put an Int roll into it.

If I remember properly, you originally agreed with this, or am I thinking of someone else? Because, it seems you've hardened your opinion since then.

Anyway, what it looks like happened is this:
(1) The players made a mistake
(2) The DM made a determination about the consequences of said mistake
(3) The players took further actions that put them in a position of potentially noticing said mistake
(4) The DM made a mistake when he failed to notice (3)
(5) The action was resolved with the consequences enforced

Finding out that things seem alright for the gaming group in question doesn't objectively mean a mistake didn't happen. It merely means (and thankfully) that the group is going to roll with it.

I still maintain my position that I would have given a roll. However, I can also see where some other DM might not give a roll, and that's okay, too. The DM can determine what things are uncertain.

What I am speaking out against are those who think that success should have been automatic for the players and who are calling the DM names. The players made the mistake through lack of attention, so to just automatically keep the players from being able to make that mistake would be to coddle them. They don't need to be protected from themselves. That doesn't mean that a roll wouldn't have been far fetched or a bad idea, though.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

All players knew that the item were bundled as a set.

And yet, a statement of selling 1 item in that set was made by a player (I sell the armor) and was interpreted as a statement of selling the entire set by the DM (I sell the contents of this bundle), so it is entirely irrelevant who did or didn't know the items were bundled as a set.

It then only becomes a question of whether the DM misinterpreted the player accidentally (a mistake), or intentionally (malicious DMing). We see in the case of the OP that he admits intentional misinterpretation, though it was unclear that was the case until the moment that "We didn't mean to sell that" was met with "Well, you did it anyway." instead of "Ok, then you didn't."

Unless, of course, you are saying that you expect a player to actually specify all the minor details rather than just the action itself. I.e. "I sell the [item placed in a container with some other number of items]" being insufficient to be resolved differently than "I sell [a container and everything within it]" to such a degree that the player needs to say "I take [item] out of [container], leaving [other items] behind. I then sell [item]."

 

[MechaPilot]

I still maintain my position that I would have given a roll. However, I can also see where some other DM might not give a roll, and that's okay, too. The DM can determine what things are uncertain.

What I am speaking out against are those who think that success should have been automatic for the players and who are calling the DM names. The players made the mistake through lack of attention, so to just automatically keep the players from being able to make that mistake would be to coddle them. They don't need to be protected from themselves. That doesn't mean that a roll wouldn't have been far fetched or a bad idea, though.

I think most of us agree with you that calling the OP/DM names is bad form, as long as you aren't saying that "you were wrong" is name calling.

And, for what it's worth, I actually agree with you about giving the PC a roll. If you give the PC a roll, then that situation is about as fair as encountering a trap (I might even award Xp for it), which is perfectly fair game.

The primary issue that I have is that the phone changes the nature of what was occurring. The phone use, IIRC, bothered everyone but the phone guy. To punish the other players because the DM had not properly discussed and enforced table etiquette is, as I see it, not fair to the other players who were participating in good faith.

 

[Aura]

I still maintain my position that I would have given a roll. However, I can also see where some other DM might not give a roll, and that's okay, too. The DM can determine what things are uncertain.

I can see how a DM might make the mistake of not giving a fair chance for the PC to notice the ring/gauntlets. I have yet to see how purposely omitting the fair chance makes for good DMing.

What I am speaking out against are those who think that success should have been automatic for the players and who are calling the DM names. The players made the mistake through lack of attention, so to just automatically keep the players from being able to make that mistake would be to coddle them. They don't need to be protected from themselves. That doesn't mean that a roll wouldn't have been far fetched or a bad idea, though.

First (and not in the order you presented):
(1) Nobody should call the DM names, other posters names, etc, etc. Agreed.
(2) I haven't been able to read intently enough to tell who things the chance should have been automatic vs who thinks it should have been a chance. (Although I suspect the 'automatic' crowd is small.) Further, I do not support making the chance automatic to simply keep the players from making a mistake. However....
(3) The chance may rise to automatic depending on player action. Based on the first description, I would not have ventured this thought. However, in the updated description, when we find out the seller was attempting to assess the value of the armor, this implies an increased chance, perhaps to automatic.

So, 'automatic' might even be an appropriate DM arbitration--so long as it's not to simply prevent the players from making a mistake.

 

[Yardiff]

What I'd like to know is how the Ranger presented the stuff he had to sell. Did he come in and just plop the bag with the items in it on the blacksmiths table and ask him how much it might be worth or did he get the items out himself? It can make a BIG difference in how things actually went down.

By a lot of the posters saying that the character should have known/been able to see the items (to me) they are in the camp of 'ranger pulled the items out himself'.

 

[Shasarak]

Update

Had a talk with the group (not with the sorcerer, or Mr Cellphone as he has been called before, because he was busy). Apparently while annoyed at the NPC for tricking them, they were totally fine with what I did as a DM. They are already planning what to do next, coming up with all sorts of wild plans to get their items back. If anything, they informed me that they were most annoyed with the ranger for selling the cursed armor after selling the adamantine armor to the blacksmith, because they wanted to study and remove its curse so they could use it somehow. But the ranger absentmindedly decided to sell that armor as well, even when he had not been instructed to do so.

That is great - they are learning from their experience and also getting the sweet sweet taste of revenge.

 

[ExploderWizard]

That's not how freedom of speech actually works you know.

I'm glad the OP's players don't blame him, that they had fun (because that is the point of the game), and that there are no hard feelings. But I'm not going to pretend that no one was in the wrong. If nothing else the OP should have politely and privately spoken to phone guy about his poor table etiquette before it ever became persistent enough to be annoying. And phone guy should have been more courteous to the rest of the group (DM included).

It isn't a freedom of speech issue. We all have a right to our opinions and a forum such as this provides a platform to get them heard. Its more a matter of the worth of all of our collective opinions being worth less than a hill of beans compared to the actual people in that group.

But none of those things is the same as saying that it was wrong to fail to clarify what was happening. The character would have known and been aware of the meaning, and would have responded accordingly--he or she would have SEEN that it included the gauntlet.

The character is just some statistics and notes. It can't think, it can't notice anything and it certainly cannot enjoy a game. A character is simply a vehicle the player uses to play the game. All aspects of play are for the player as the character wouldn't be able to appreciate or enjoy them.

Punishing the whole group for one person misunderstanding an intentionally vague statement, after the player had intentionally appraised what he was offering to the buyer, is an Unwise Move. It may not have been a dick move, but it's pretty close, and I would have a problem with it if it happened to me. Given my bouts of absent-mindedness, I strongly suspect it could have, and I'd be pretty upset.

I don't see what happened as any sort of punishment, simply a DM letting an inattentive player reap the rewards of inattention. A player who was paying attention would have have had their spidey senses tingle when the shopkeeper asked if ALL of it was being sold. The dialogue meant something. It was the DM giving the player a chance to "wake up" and realize what was happening. The warning was ignored and the results are what you get.

Making boneheaded mistakes is part of the fun of playing. Speaking only for myself, a game where everything goes as intended because " my character wouldn't screw up" reduces the player to little more than dice rolling observer and that would bore the hell out of me very quickly. Its a game. Mistakes get made, and disasters happen. But it is only a game. Lets not forget that when discussing the amount of butthurt being thrown around.