D&D 5E (2014) Was I in the wrong?

[AaronOfBarbaria]

False dichotomy? The option Aaron presented is the same thing as the option maxperson presented...

I'm glad at least someone noticed that.

 

[Maxperson]

Ultimately this is truth. Had those gauntlets been adamantine and not magical, but appeared identical to how the DM described, the players would have sold it as part of the set and nobody here would say boo about it. That they were magical and not adamantine does not change that they are a part of the set. It makes it a costly mistake when the set is sold.

When something is clearly part of a set like that, you need to let the DM know if you are doing something outside the normal, "I sell the set of armor." Otherwise, it's on you if you make that mistake and sell them. The DM is not obligated to be a mind reader, or to retcon the situation, rewinding time for you so that you can rectify YOUR mistake.

 

[Maxperson]

False dichotomy? The option Aaron presented is the same thing as the option maxperson presented...

That's what I get for posting from my phone at work, trying to read all the tiny letters. Doh! My bad.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

The DM is not obligated to be a mind reader...

Nor is the DM obligated to refuse to have you clarify a statement that their information tells them is vague, or obligated to assume the meaning least beneficial to the player when they known that more than one possible meaning exists to the player's chosen words.

When something is clearly part of a set like that...

It is not actually clear that these gauntlets of ogre power were part of the set of adamantine armor.

...or to retcon the situation, rewinding time for you so that you can rectify YOUR mistake.

But the DM probably should retcon the situation and rewind time to rectify their own mistake of knowing that the player could have meant one of a number of things by their statement and choosing to assume one meaning in particular rather than ask for clarification.

Because communication isn't a one-man job.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I think there are plenty of players around who don't care very much about bundling/unbundling and the minutiae of buying and selling, but do care about having magic items for their PCs. I'd put myself in that category!

Is there any reason why the game should require players to care about the minutiae in order to get access to magic items? I don't see one; but your comments, and those of some other posters in this thread, seem to think that there is such a reason. Why?

Even if you think that magic items are some sort of reward for good play, what has caring about bundling and unbundling and the minutiae of buying and selling got to do with being a good player?

Any aspect of play that players may care about is worth paying attention to. As a player, I would care quite a bit about unidentified magic items. Such items could be meaningful to the adventure beyond their use as simple gear. Until such items are identified they wouldn't be tossed into a bundle and treated as mere inventory.

One cannot assume that any magical items found are just gear upgrades until they prove to be. If one of the items were a maguffin or a link to the next adventure should it be treated so casually?

Once you know that an item is simply gear, then you can treat it like insignificant inventory if you really want to, but at that point why get upset if it gets lost. Its just gear so it will get replaced at some point right?

 

[Maxperson]

Nor is the DM obligated to refuse to have you clarify a statement that their information tells them is vague, or obligated to assume the meaning least beneficial to the player when they known that more than one possible meaning exists to the player's chosen words.

There was nothing to clarify. The player had a set that included the gauntlets. He sold the set. Noting the ring, the one thing not a part of the set, the smith asked if the player was selling everything. The DM acted on clear information. Forgetfulness =/= vague.

It is not actually clear that these gauntlets of ogre power were part of the set of adamantine armor.

And yet I'd wager good money that you wouldn't say boo if the same thing happened with simple adamantine gauntlets that looked the same. You wouldn't expect the DM to stop and clarify.

 

[pemerton]

Ultimately this is truth. Had those gauntlets been adamantine and not magical, but appeared identical to how the DM described, the players would have sold it as part of the set and nobody here would say boo about it.

Of course. Because if the gauntlets had had no special significance, and hence had not been something that the players had distinctive concerns for, then by "the armour" the player would have intended to refer to the armour and the gauntlets.

No one is denying that reference is driven, in part, by what speakers care about and what is salient to them. On the contrary: that's the basis for criticising the OP's adjudication of the ranger player's action declaration!

Any aspect of play that players may care about is worth paying attention to. As a player, I would care quite a bit about unidentified magic items. Such items could be meaningful to the adventure beyond their use as simple gear. Until such items are identified they wouldn't be tossed into a bundle and treated as mere inventory.

Telling me what you do as a player isn't answering the question, though.

I, as a player, am not very interested in inventory management, in detailing how items are bundled up, etc. It's not a part of the game that really grips me. Is that a flaw, as a player? Is it bad play to assume that the GM will recognise that saying "I sell the armour" doesn't also mean "And I give away our magical gauntlets for free", in circumstances where I know there are magical gauntlets around but haven't bothered to note exactly how another player declared them to have been bundled up?

I don't think that it is.

When something is clearly part of a set like that, you need to let the DM know if you are doing something outside the normal

In what way were the gauntlets clearly part of a set? The GM knew they were distinctively magical. The players knew they were distinctively magical. The GM knew that the players didn't mean to sell them (or, in fact, give them away) - hence the "dramatic" revelation that this was what had happened.

There is no uncertainty here. No one's mental state was one of confusion. The issue is purely about the wording of an action declaration.

Forgetfulness =/= vague.

The player hadn't forgotten about the gauntlets. The player didn't want to sell the gauntlets. The player had told the GM that his PC was selling something that they both knew to be distinct from the gauntlets - namely, the non-magical armour.

It's not about mental states. It's about wording.

 

[Pandaemoni]

A blood vessel bursts in D&D's left eye, and you see the whites turn blood red as a result of Page 68 inflicting 4 points of psychic damage!

 

[Yardiff]

A blood vessel bursts in D&D's left eye, and you see the whites turn blood red as a result of Page 68 inflicting 4 points of psychic damage!

Worthless post....why don't you just stop reading the thread?

 

[ExploderWizard]

Telling me what you do as a player isn't answering the question, though.

I, as a player, am not very interested in inventory management, in detailing how items are bundled up, etc. It's not a part of the game that really grips me. Is that a flaw, as a player? Is it bad play to assume that the GM will recognise that saying "I sell the armour" doesn't also mean "And I give away our magical gauntlets for free", in circumstances where I know there are magical gauntlets around but haven't bothered to note exactly how another player declared them to have been bundled up?

I don't think that it is.

Things that happen that don't interest you shouldn't bother you. This is about things that DO matter to the player yet the player cannot be arsed enough to devote any thought or care to them. So what you are saying is that a player shouldn't need to care about anything important if he/she finds it personally uninteresting yet everything concerning that uninteresting thing should just happen as intended regardless of carelessness.

Lets take that concept and run with it. Suppose a player doesn't find smart tactics to be interesting. Lets further assume that because of that opinion this player's character constantly gets his/her butt kicked on a regular basis, but getting beaten up constantly is irritating so the player just wants to win in combat without having to pay attention or worry about choosing good tactics.

Should the DM arrange for this player to win just because winning is important but putting forth the care to do so supposedly isn't?

If you suck at an aspect of play you can either decide to improve or keep sucking and live with it.