D&D 5E Was I in the wrong?

[Sunseeker]

The scenario is kind of like:

player1: I set this tree on fire!

(time passes, play goes on)

player2: I look around for a tree to climb.

dm: There's a tree over there!

player2: I climb the tree

dm: Take 5 fire damage!

player2: Huh?

Alternatively the DM could have said "all the trees nearby are on fire". Plus, the player said "I look for a tree to climb." Indicating that he was looking, and presumably only an extreme moron would climb a burning tree, even an inattentive person would notice it's ON FIRE when they approached it, long before they took fire damage. I would consider this an extreme 'gotcha' on the part of the DM. Unless the player said he lit ALL THE TREES on fire, there's no reason to suggest he'd go climb the ones that are on fire. This is a starring example of the DM choosing to not inform the player of all the obvious relevant information in order to get him to do something foolish, ie: a gotcha.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

The character would have obviously looked at the armor he was selling and would have seen the gauntlet. The DM not reminding the player of the thing that his character is looking at right now is not the player's fault. This is 100% a failure on the DM's part. That isn't to say it's a terrible thing. It can be undone, the DM can learn and become better. But it is what it is.

The problem with this is a part of the challenge of playing a game in your heads.

If you remind them that there is a ring and a different pair of gauntlets, which you already described in detail, then you are also putting a big sign on them that says "don't sell these."

There's a dilemma here in that the slightly unscrupulous smith is hoping to pull one over on the characters. That's a normal, expected, and interesting interaction. They should probably have a healthy distrust of almost any merchant that they are attempting to sell an item to. And it's entirely impossible if the DM has to remind them that the gauntlets have a ring and look different. As soon as you remind them, there is not scene, no interaction anymore.

The PCs had an opportunity to get some cool magic items. They blew it. It's no big deal. This is one of the things that I don't think would ever present a problem with the players I've had (at least, things like this haven't yet). If they made a mistake, so be it. More importantly, since they never knew what the ring or gauntlets did, they wouldn't know whether they made a big mistake, or none at all. The fact that the mistake of one player impacted the party is irrelevant. That happens all the time. Bad things happen to the party because of bad decisions by one PC.

I also agree that it now presents some interesting story opportunities should the PCs choose to follow up on them.

Our group doesn't like the 5e approach to magic items. Sure, I'll often tell them what something is to keep things simple, but I and my players over the years have always enjoyed the idea of determining whether an item has an intrinsic or magical value. And then how to use that item.

Most items I place have a history, if only a basic one. So it's usually a mix of items that I'll let them just determine what they are, and those that will require some additional work. We've modified things like detect magic and identify to take into account the power of the item or spell effect, and that casting the identify spell at a higher level has benefits. So this scenario does happen in my campaign. If I put in the effort to describe and answer questions about the armor at the time, then I'd expect that they'll remember it later on.

I might, if I really felt it was necessary, allow a roll (I wouldn't tell them what it's for) to remember the items when attempting to sell them. It would depend in part on what they described as they go about the sale with the blacksmith. I should note that it's quite possible that they may be in the opposite situation, where they find a bargain because the merchant makes a mistake. It has and does happen in my campaign for the same reason. They also find that they can purchase magic items that aren't (the point of Nystul's Magic Aura).

The bottom line is, the DM put together an interesting treasure. The RAW make it difficult to introduce interesting treasures with mystery and unknown capabilities. If the players didn't realize that something like this might happen, now they know. I doubt they would make the same mistake again, and maybe the one player learned that it helps to pay attention to what's going on (probably not in my experience).

Based on the information given, I don't think the DM did anything wrong here at all.

Ilbranteloth

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

If you remind them that there is a ring and a different pair of gauntlets, which you already described in detail, then you are also putting a big sign on them that says "don't sell these."

There is no problem with that.

Especially in this scenario where something like the following could very likely be what played out:

Player: I show the blacksmith the armor and tell him I'd like to sell it.
DM: You present the blacksmith the armor, the gauntlets, and the ring stuck on them. He starts looking them over to assess what to offer you and asks "All of it?"
Player: I said the armor, and I meant the armor. The gauntlets and ring were never presented to the blacksmith because I didn't say I did that.
DM: Oh, sorry... I thought since you guys put all that stuff into one bundle that if you were selling anything in the bundle it would be everything in the bundle.
Player: ...what? That makes no sense. Would you think I was selling my entire backpack and all of it's contents if I told you I wanted to sell one of the items I had previously put in the backpack?

 

[Yardiff]

And it could just as easily gone just the way the OP said it did, the player (seems most of his players) wasnt fully engaged and missed clues.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

And it could just as easily gone just the way the OP said it did, the player (seems most of his players) wasnt fully engaged and missed clues.

Whether the player missed clues is not actually at issue.

What is at issue is that, according to the DM, the player declared an intent to sell "armor." The DM has not claimed that the player actually said "all the stuff in this bundle," nor indicated any reason for making the assumption that "armor" meant "all the stuff in this bundle."

Player: I sell a coil of rope to the guy.
DM: He gives you 2 gp for it.
Player: Cool.. I head off to the other place I'm going, and get some jerky out of my backpack to snack on along the way.
DM: You have no backpack.
Player: What? Since when?
DM: Since you sold it to that guy along with the rope.

The only "clue" that the player missed was the "clue" that his DM was intentionally deciding to misinterpret clearly stated intent - expecting the player to say "I sell item X, but not also everything else in the same container and the container itself." when "I sell item X" should be taken to mean exactly that same thing.

Of course, this all just based on what information the DM actually presented - I might be wrong in believing the DM when they said the player said "armor", the player could have actually said something that indicated a meaning more than just "armor", and the DM could be lying about it... of course, I don't find that a likely scenario since people that lie typically lie to make themselves look better, and there is no benefit for this DM in saying what is effectively "The player said 'armor,' and I deliberately and unfairly interpreted that to mean 'armor, and also other items that I didn't actually mention' because I felt at the time that it was deserved unfairness."

 

[Neurotic]

I believe DM said the player said SET of armor which would include helm, gauntlets etc...and that the barbarian player packed everything (armor and gauntlets) together. Therefore, presenting the package and saying set of armor means everything that is set of armor in this package.

DM also posted that this issue is resolved at the table later so this is non-issue.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I believe DM said the player said SET of armor which would include helm, gauntlets etc...

Yeah, sure... except when it is known by the characters that part of that set doesn't match, at which point the "set of armor" means all the items that are part of the set of armor (helmet, cuirass/breastplate, greaves, pauldrons, etc.) and none of the items that aren't.

As to the non-issue, yes - whether this DM in particular was in the wrong or not is no longer an issue... that doesn't mean that there is no issue at all to discuss on the topic of a DM being deliberately unfair in spite, or a DM unintentionally becoming an antagonist against their players by making the mistakes made by the OP of this thread.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

There is no problem with that.

Especially in this scenario where something like the following could very likely be what played out:

Player: I show the blacksmith the armor and tell him I'd like to sell it.
DM: You present the blacksmith the armor, the gauntlets, and the ring stuck on them. He starts looking them over to assess what to offer you and asks "All of it?"
Player: I said the armor, and I meant the armor. The gauntlets and ring were never presented to the blacksmith because I didn't say I did that.
DM: Oh, sorry... I thought since you guys put all that stuff into one bundle that if you were selling anything in the bundle it would be everything in the bundle.
Player: ...what? That makes no sense. Would you think I was selling my entire backpack and all of it's contents if I told you I wanted to sell one of the items I had previously put in the backpack?

Which is exactly my point. You've reminded them that there is something unusual about the armor, which if they were paying attention wouldn't need reminding. That reminder changed the course of the interaction simply because you mentioned them.

Your concept of selling the backpack (including in your later post of selling the rope) makes no sense. An item you put into your backpack is something entirely different than something that was found, and described, as one item with unique features, and then "bundled up as a set" by one of the players.

So, you find a well-used backpack with several repairs and patches. Two of the patches happen to be special pouches magically attached to the backpack, large enough to store a scroll or potion. The patches can be removed and attached to any pack, cloak, or similar item made of fabric.

The players make a note of it, and plan to investigate it later. But one of the PCs, not paying attention, doesn't really consider that there is anything more than just a couple of patches on a beat up backpack.

As soon as you mention the patches in the interaction, you are calling out attention to them, virtually ensuring that they won't accidentally sell them.

Again, the PCs really have no idea that there was anything more to the patches, or the gauntlets and the ring, since they never investigated them further. They might suspect something was different, but this is more meta-gaming based on the fact that they were described differently. If the DM describes many treasures or items in this amount of detail, then the players won't know without further effort which are just different because the original owner found a pair of gauntlets they liked and added them to their existing suit, and wanted others to think the gauntlets were magical by attaching a ring to them.

To me, it's no different than the players missing a secret door with a treasure behind it. You give them the clues, you let them determine what to do with it. If they decide not to investigate it, you aren't obligated to remind them of it if they return to the room later.

Life is extremely complex. People forget things all the time. How many of us have put something on the kitchen counter or by the front door so we don't forget to take it with us, only to remember an hour after we left that we were supposed to bring it with us? This is a perfectly reasonable thing to expect and allow in the game.

There are times when I think it's appropriate to provide reminders, or a chance by die roll. Most of the time this relates to trying to remember things that you should know. Perhaps it's clues that you gave them in a session 3 months ago, and they can't find their notes (or didn't take any). They are specifically discussing things relating to those clues, and they are trying to remember everything they know. Then it makes sense, they can make a check. But they are specifically stating that they are trying to remember what's going on.

In this case, though, all of the players had the opportunity to remember that there was something different about it. Based on the OP, they decided to investigate them as soon as he got back. Any one of them could have said, "go sell the armor, we'll take a look at the gauntlets and ring after you get back" before the ranger headed off to the smith.

During the transaction, I'd be listening to whether the player said anything at all that would indicate that they remembered the gauntlets and ring. For 90% of tables, this would include what other players are saying, since that would also change what the PC is saying.

I don't see any way that the DM could mention the gauntlets and ring in this situation without entirely removing the possibility that the shifty smith can't pull on over on them. And while the DM isn't playing against the PCs, at this point in time the NPC is.

Even having the smith point out that the gauntlets are different and attempt to reduce the price of the armor because they don't quite match would have reminded them and would have ended the possibility of the smith getting the deal.

The players should learn from it - not that everybody is a thief, but that some people might be. And they need to make sure that they are clear about their intentions. The DM described them in detail, and the PCs thought something else was more important at the time (the sword), and just said, "keep the set together, we'll look at it later." It appears that it all happened in the same session, so it's not like there was a long time between the two events where they would easily forget.

Better communication between the players (characters), more attention to detail, less looking at their phone, better descriptions of intentions and actions to the DM - all things that are valuable to playing the game and things the players can (should) learn from this.

The DMs job is to present the scenario, and referee the outcome. They aren't there to prevent you from making mistakes or poor decisions. He didn't give them the suit of armor with the intention of taking away the items. He just saw an opportunity for an interesting encounter. The actions of the players and characters are intertwined and I think that's a perfectly reasonable interpretation based on everything that had been described before.

The only thing that isn't clear, although I think we know the answer, is if the ranger had specifically singled out the gauntlet and the ring as being important ahead of time. If they had been the player that was asking questions about them - that is their character seemed to have a particuar interest in them - then I probably would have allowed a Perception check to notice that the gauntlets were present when he opened the bundle for the smith. Perhaps an opposed check against the smith's Deception or Persuasion.

If they had thrown the suit in a sack with lots of other things and had to fish it out in pieces, that would also be different. But to bundle it all up as a set, I see that as a single unit from that point forward unless they state otherwise. Unless they stated something different, "I give the armor to the ranger" is "I take the bundle of armor from my pack and give it to the ranger." If that's not what you meant, then be more specific next time.

Ilbranteloth

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Yeah, sure... except when it is known by the characters that part of that set doesn't match, at which point the "set of armor" means all the items that are part of the set of armor (helmet, cuirass/breastplate, greaves, pauldrons, etc.) and none of the items that aren't.

As to the non-issue, yes - whether this DM in particular was in the wrong or not is no longer an issue... that doesn't mean that there is no issue at all to discuss on the topic of a DM being deliberately unfair in spite, or a DM unintentionally becoming an antagonist against their players by making the mistakes made by the OP of this thread.

Yes, but you're also assuming that what they think is a set of armor is the same as what you think.

If you go to buy a used car, and a door is replaced but not painted yet, you wouldn't ask, "Does it come with the door? Because clearly it's not part of the original car."

No, whether it matches or not, it's now part of the car.

If they stated that they picked up all of the stuff to look at later, that's one thing. But they "bundle up the suit of armor as is," is different.

Any more than I wouldn't ask, "are you selling the door with that car too?"

The armor was described as a set, including the gauntlets with the attached ring. They never indicated that they were separating them, nor thought of them as items independent of the armor. In any one of my campaigns, somebody would have spoken up and said, "I take the gauntlets" simply because they were described as different. Unless they players (characters) specify that they are viewing the gauntlets as separate from the set of armor I wouldn't have assumed otherwise.

Not to mention, in D&D, you don't buy breastplates, greaves, pauldrons, gauntlets, etc. You buy a suit of armor.

By your definition, the DM could easily have said, "oh you don't have those. You left them back in the dungeon. You said you bundled up the armor as is, but the gauntlets were clearly not from that suit of armor, and you didn't specify that you brought those."

So interpreting selling the "armor" as including those items is reasonable. The ranger, who seems to be fairly unobservant/uniterested, takes the bundle and places it on the counter for the smith to look at, then aimlessly looks around the shop while offhandedly answering the smith's questions.

So I don't think there's a gotcha or that the DM was unfair, nor do I think it's a mistake on the part of the DM. The description of the original item was a suit of armor. It's a suit of armor with some unusual features, but it was described at all points as a suit of armor.

You're right that it's not about players missing clues. It's about the players not paying attention, nor clearly indicating their intentions. Once they bundled it up as a set (which is what they all viewed it as), the bundle remains intact until they specify that they separate them. If the player was showing disinterest in the interaction and events of the game during that interaction, then I'd assume that the character was as well. I would watch for any opportunity to potentially give them at least a die roll as a reminder, but if the player isn't providing any actions or statements to lead to that, they don't just get an automatic roll.

Ilbranteloth

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Maybe it is just me and my group, but in a situation like this, as I described each item found a player would be writing them down. The relevant section of this writing would read like this:

Adamantine Armor, 1 suit
Gauntlets, 1 pair
Ring

Each having a brief description so that it is clear which item of that type is in question later, such as "Ring, engraved gold band set with 3 red stones" and "Ring, stylized shield device" to keep the two straight.

Then, when selling the armor the player would likely interpret "..the whole set?" as meaning all the pieces of the armor, not just some of them (like selling off everything but the breastplate). After the sale, the list of items would still read:

Gauntlets, 1 pair
Ring (and description)

So the player, knowing they didn't mean to sell those items would firmly believe them still in the possession of the party - and be rightfully agitated if I as DM were trying to insist their character had made a mistake and sold them with the armor because I decided my interpretation of "I sell the armor to the blacksmith" was "I sell the armor, guantlets, and ring to the blacksmith."

And if I did end up misinterpreting something the players had their characters do so that what I think happened and what they think happened differ? I'd say "Oh, sorry I misunderstood. Let's adjust that then, and move on." because I have no malicious or disciplinary intent towards my players.

And if the players did write them down like this, then I'd have no problem saying, "OK, I misunderstood you."

But there is no indication that any of them wrote anything down. And if they wrote it down as "1 suit of armor with non-matching gauntlets and a ring attached" I would stand by the view as them viewing it as a whole set.

Ilbranteloth