D&D 5E Was I in the wrong?

[Ilbranteloth]

Except the ranger explicitly made a check that would have required him to look directly at the passport as he was getting off the train. The example is closer to him handing his passport to a border guard, and immediately after that finding that all the pages were missing from it when he gave it to the guard...

I don't agree with that, though. He asked if "he can make a int check to learn how much such an armor would go for"

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?478623-Was-I-in-the-wrong/page14#ixzz42VFVuYlD

I think that can be read a number of different ways as well. Again, we're limited by the wording presented in the post instead of actually being there.

But if somebody is just asking "how much such a suit of armor would sell for" doesn't necessarily mean that they are required to look directly at the armor. Such a question can be asked and answered even if the item is not there. A friend could simply tell me that he saw a particular car for sale, and I could ask the same thing - meaning "based on my (your) experience, how much would such a car sell for?" In fact, because he made a check that succeeded so well, I might argue that it implied that he knew what the general value of a suit of adamantine armor was without even thinking about it, much less having to examine it closely.

Again, to me there isn't really enough actual information (for me anyway) to judge whether in this specific instance the DM made a mistake or not. It's a summary, and we'll never know exactly what the player said, what the tone, body language was, etc.

But the debate is still quite valid, as a question as to whether this type of scenario, as described, is OK or not. And that's entirely dependent upon the players involved.

It's also important to understand that I'm not saying that the DM didn't deceive the player. That was partially the point of the encounter, even if it didn't start that way. Because the DM realized that the player did not remember/realize that they had never separated the gauntlets from the suit of armor, he assumed that the gauntlets were present. Rightfully in my opinion, based on the game definition of "suit of armor" combined with what the players said/did before the encounter.

I view the encounter as being one that simulates, in part, those times where we do do something absentminded and make a mistake, as well as one where the NPC is attempting to deceive the character. Which is a difficult thing to simulate in a game precisely because if the DM mentioned the gauntlets during the encounter, he would have alerted the player to the fact that they might be making a mistake.

While many of you would argue that the DM is required to do so, I disagree. It's an interesting encounter, and while I might have adjudicated it slightly differently mechanically, I don't see any fault in the DM either. More importantly, based on the description that the players are OK with it, I don't see any issue with it for this DM.

Without input from the players specifically, we really can't know if they simply forgot vs. a disconnect between what the DM described as the situation and the player's understanding. It's probably a combination of both. That doesn't mean in either case, however, that the scenario is unreasonable, as I, and others, have pointed out situations where we have made errors of memory and recognizing, realizing what's in front of our face.

This is all within the spirit that the game (for us) is a simulation of the lives of the characters in a "real" world. Life is full of successes and failures, and those shape the lives of the characters. The DM will play tricks on the PCs from time-to-time, whether it be a trap, invisible or hidden creatures, ambushes, etc., and situations like this. It's up to the individual group to determine what tricks the DM is allowed to consider part of their set of tools, and that's why if the players really felt this was unfair, then I'd change it. Such circumstances are determined at my table largely by the players.

We've had plenty of circumstances where they will find something, then forget to actually pick something up and take it with them. It usually presents itself when a player says "I want to use the wand that was being held by the statue." "Did somebody pick it up, I don't recall." "Umm, well, I don't think so, but I would have."

Followed either by, "darn it" or a brief discussion by the players. If the table consensus is that they should have it, so be it. Most of the time they don't. If they were specifically looking for the wand, then I'd probably assume they did. But this suit of armor was an incidental treasure, and that's it. In which case I'd assume that if they didn't tell me they picked it up, they didn't. Or, if they don't tell me they try to sell the armor without the gauntlets. It's not a question of what they would have done, but what they did.

More importantly, I'm sure that they would agree. I'll report back after Saturday's session if they feel differently.

Part of that perspective is that we don't feel the job of the DM is to prevent them from making little or big mistakes. The players are responsible for the actions of their characters. If those actions are compromised because they aren't paying attention, that's largely their issue. They will let me know if it's because of a misunderstanding due to poor communication on my part. And that's when we might change it. But it's a table consensus, and in the case of their table it sounds like the consensus was to go with it. That doesn't mean everybody will agree, but, at least at our table, we agree that we'll go with the majority, even if we personally disagree. If we really feel strongly about it, we take that into account as well. That usually presents itself as "well, if Dave really feels that strongly, then I can't really say it's OK either."

Ilbranteloth

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

What really matters in a situation like this is what the people at the table think. While we have a general sense of how they feel, we don't know what their general table rules are. If there's a disagreement at our table, we'll discuss it briefly, make a decision and move on. We can always revisit it later. The decision is usually by simple majority if a vote is necessary at all.

Essentially this. I'm not a fan of "gotcha" tactics myself (way to easy to pull them off when you are the DM, even when without intent), but if the table considers this example to be a slight, then it is a slight. If the table thinks nothing of it, then joke around about it. But if the two sides have completely opposite views on the subject, then it's probably better not to play at all. It always pains me when a table breaks up, but it's better not to play then play a "bad" table

 

[Maxperson]

Strange that others get banned from this thread, but you are allowed to keep trolling.

I don't troll. Keep your insults to yourself.

The players clearly never intended to sell the ring and gauntlet.

I've accidentally done tings I clearly never intended to do, including sell something at a garage sale that was inside of something. Stuff happens.

 

[Maxperson]

Except the ranger explicitly made a check that would have required him to look directly at the passport as he was getting off the train. The example is closer to him handing his passport to a border guard, and immediately after that finding that all the pages were missing from it when he gave it to the guard...

Not really. The DM described the gauntlets as part of the armor and the ring as part of the gauntlets. That means that an appraise check to evaluate the armor would include the gauntlets in the ring unless the player explicitly said otherwise. He didn't.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

It seems you are assuming that the players aren't adult enough to tell the DM (one of their best friends) the truth.

That is absolutely false, I made no such assumption.

Reading comprehension fail.

Yeah, you do, but that's fine - it happens. I won't hold it against you.

I didn't say you assumed anything.

I didn't say that you did. I asked you what you were talking about because you saying "there is no reason to assume that" (emphasis mine) when there is no that which I have assumed is confusing (like most non sequitur statements).

I said there was no reason to assume what you posited as a possibility.

If you are saying that there is no reason for me to assume that possibility actually occurred, that is correct, and being correct is precisely why I didn't make that assumption.

If you are saying that there is no reason for me to assume there is such a possibility, then that is also correct - but only because I am not assuming it is possible, I know from evidence that it is possible. I have experienced far more people, of all ages, willing to say something besides the full truth in front of who they think might not like to hear it and will reveal the full truth "behind their back", to borrow a phrase, than I have people that are like me and willing to share nothing but the full truth even if it might not be pleasant to hear.

The DM has stated what his players felt and said they were good with it.

Not in argument.

That's what we have to go on and going with anything else is assuming that thing.

Again, you are mistaken that I am "going with anything else." What I am doing is saying that what the DM has told us is almost certainly what he was told by his players, but without testimony directly from those players without the DM seeing/hearing said testimony we cannot know with any certainty whether what they told their DM was the full truth or not (and I'm not assuming either of those outcomes).

 

[Tellerian Hawke]

Hmmm.. I have arrived late in the conversation, it seems, and I will freely admit that I am too lazy to read all 40 pages of comments. So just let me know if this has already been said.

CAVEAT: I haven't played 5th ed. yet. I still play 3rd ed. But I still believe that I can contribute something helpful.

So let's get started.

Ok, some guy back near the start said that in 5th ed, it's easy to tell if something's magical. This is true, even in 3rd ed. Has everyone forgotten that magical items have to be MASTERWORK, in order to be suitable for enchantment? Is that still a thing in 5th ed? If so, that right there is the first clue; if it's masterwork, you'd better cast Detect Magic, just to be sure.

Secondly, a ring stuck on a gauntlet is a BIG red flag, that screams, "I'm a cool magic item, please remove me from this gauntlet!" Plus, the DM described it as looking like part of a set, but not necessarily part of THIS set (of Adamantine armor.) That's a major clue that something's amiss. As a player, I would be SURE at that point to separate the gauntlet and ring from the rest.

Another thing that I would have done as DM, since I know that the smith is dishonest, and that he is trying to cheat the characters by omitting the inclusion of the gauntlet and ring, I would have given the character(s) involved in the transaction a Sense Motive check, to notice that the smith looked kind of nervous about something. Is Sense Motive still a thing in 5th ed.? If so, the players deserved that chance.

Basically, in my opinion, the OP is in the wrong, not because "gotchas" are wrong, but simply because he didn't allow the players a fair chance to overcome it. And the reason that the DM is obligated to do so is because, no matter how much attention you pay to the DM's exact words when he's describing something, WORDS ALWAYS FAIL to live up to what the situation would actually be in reality. Therefore, in order to compensate for the disparity between mere description vs. virtual reality, GAME MECHANICS must be used, in order to ensure that the CHARACTER has the chance (being actually "in" the game world) to notice things that the PLAYER does not or cannot, being in the real world, and thus one step removed from the character's reality.

One final thing, was there a Paladin in the group? And if so, was the smith of evil alignment? Because Paladins won't deal with evil merchants.

Was there a rogue in the group, with high-level Sense Motive skill? Same thing, he'd know better than to trade with the smith.

Just my two cents.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Ok, some guy back near the start said that in 5th ed, it's easy to tell if something's magical. This is true, even in 3rd ed. Has everyone forgotten that magical items have to be MASTERWORK, in order to be suitable for enchantment? Is that still a thing in 5th ed? If so, that right there is the first clue; if it's masterwork, you'd better cast Detect Magic, just to be sure.

There is no "masterwork" built into the 5th edition game, just the note regarding magic items that it is obvious upon handling them that there is something extraordinary (which I think I remember the OP saying they intentionally house-ruled, resulting in players being able to be unsure, either way he described the result of his changes to magic item identification rules, and their result as being that his players no longer build their characters to do them and spend money for NPCs to do it instead).

One final thing, was there a Paladin in the group? And if so, was the smith of evil alignment? Because Paladins won't deal with evil merchants.

Paladins, in 5th edition, are no more able to tell that a merchant is evil than any other class. Their detection ability has been altered to only know the presence, location, and type of any celestial, fiend, or undead creature within 60 feet and not behind total cover, and the presence of objects or locations that have that been consecrated or desecrated.

Was there a rogue in the group, with high-level Sense Motive skill? Same thing, he'd know better than to trade with the smith.

That, unfortunately, would only apply if such a rogue was with the character at the time of selling to the smith (which the character was alone while doing, however bad an idea that was), and hinges upon the DM allowing for any chance to use Insight (what the 5th edition skill that covers the same tasks as Sense Motive is called), which markedly did not happen - in my opinion, specifically because the DM was trying to trick the player and didn't mind ignoring whatever defense against such tricks the character might have.

 

[Tellerian Hawke]

Ah, well, all that being said, (and Bravo to you, Aaron, for being so thorough!) I would still fall back on the premise that the DM should have provided a chance, via some existing game mechanic, for the CHARACTER to notice something that the PLAYER didn't, because of the player's removal from the character's reality.

 

[Lejaun]

Absolutely, they should have had a chance before selling the armor......if it even got that far.

The players going to the magic shop and inquiring into getting information on the gauntlet and ring, without any prompting or guidance from the DM, indicates that they had no intention of selling the gauntlet and ring. They would have never asked that question and this topic would have never come up if they had intended to sell them.

In real world legal terms, a contract is required to have a meeting of the minds, aka both parties must have the same understanding of what the actual deal is. That never took place in this incident.

Why did this incident happen? Because the players and DM are in a world in which they can't actually physically touch, handle and see what is being sold. The meaning of words that the DM was telling them was different than what the player thought the DM meant. In a world where words are the only thing you have to go on, it is crucial that both parties know exactly what the other is trying to describe.

Perhaps I play differently, but it doesn't seem like it would be much fun to play in a game where I have to scrutinize every single world that the DM says and to methodically say every single step of every single thing that I do.

A previous post describing setting a tree on fire is a perfect example of this. (Player sets a tree on fire. Later player says he climbs a tree and the DM says, "Ah ha! You take fire damage!") The player obviously wouldn't climb a tree on fire. If all the trees are on fire, it is the DM's job to say something like "You look for a tree to climb, but all of the ones nearby are on fire. Do you want to climb one of them?" The player is able to clearly recognize what the deal is (I can climb a tree, but if I do it will be in a tree on fire). If the DM says "You take fire damage" the player is not going to be mad, because he was properly described the scene and should know what would happen.

This applies very well to this incident. The DM straight up did a poor job of describing the situation and deal accurately. The proper way would have been for the DM/Blacksmith to say something like: "The blacksmith looks over the suit of armor. He examines the helm, breastplate, greaves, vambraces and the gauntlet with the ring stuck on one finger. He then turns to you and says, "This armor is beat up, but there is enough value to it that I am interested. I will give you 1,000 gold for all of the armor pieces that you have shown me here."

The player clearly knows what is being sold because the DM has described it accurately. If the player sells the armor, he is more to blame than the blacksmith because what was being sold was described accurately. There isn't room for confusion. The DM in this situation failed to do that completely. He should have never put the players in this kind of situation because his storytelling should be of a level that leaves no room for this type of confusion.

 

[Yardiff]

What people here tend to forget is that the ranger didn't even remember about the ring and gauntlets until the whole party was back together and they ask about them.