D&D 5E Was I in the wrong?

[AaronOfBarbaria]

There was nothing to clarify.

Evidence presented by the OP strongly suggests otherwise. If there were nothing to clarify, the players would not have had a different idea about what had gone down than the DM did - they never would have had that moment of trying to identify the ring and gauntlets they had just sold.

The player had a set that included the gauntlets.

Except he didn't because the DM presented the gauntlets to the party as not actually being part of the set, according to information given to us by the OP.

Noting the ring, the one thing not a part of the set, the smith asked if the player was selling everything.

A question that has been shown to not actually clarify anything since it could be asked exactly as worded whether "all of it" meant all the pieces normally in a suit of armor, or it meant all the pieces normally in a suit of armor and also the ring.

The DM acted on clear information.

Not according to what the DM told us in the OP, he didn't.

Forgetfulness =/= vague.

That's true. It's also irrelevant.

What the player knows or doesn't know has no bearing on whether a statement they make is vague or not, unless the DM can read their mind.
It is only what the DM knows that is necessary for a statement made by the player to be vague, because upon hearing it the DM knows that either the player meant this, or the player meant that. That little moment where the DM thinks "...did the player forget about the ring?" is the proof that the statement "I sell the armor" with no mention of the ring becomes vague - because if the player doesn't know there is a ring, they can't mean to be including it, but if they do know there is a ring they can mean to be excluding it by not mentioning it, and the DM doesn't know which because the DM cannot read the player's mind.

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.

Yes, Max, if the situation were entirely different I would treat it as an entirely different situation. Not at all sure why you think that is relevant.

 

[Pandaemoni]

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

Worthless post....why don't you just stop reading my posts?

 

[ExploderWizard]

I think this little clip sums up this entire thread.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhpSXiexMu4

 

[Ilbranteloth]

So in a futile attempt to stop the madness, here's my short list of what I think is relevant:

The only thing that matters is what occurs at your table.

The situation played out as described. After the fact, the players said, "whoa, how did that happen?"

- The DM explained why/how it happened.

- The players can respond with, "oh, OK. I don't like it, but I can go with that. It makes sense" or "You know, based on how we've been playing the game that's just not fair."

- The DM moves forward as is, or retcons based on the consensus at the table.

That's what should happen when there's confusion or a disagreement. Every. Single. Time.

That's what happened here. The DM explained his position, the players went with it.

I've explained in great detail why I feel that what happened would also occur in a similar manner at my table.

I've tried to make it clear that it's very situational, and that the answer for that one situation doesn't always apply to all situations. Trying to condense things down to "all players must state every action with great detail" or "all suits of armor include the gauntlets" or other one-size-fits-all answer, at least based on my posts, is not understanding my posts.

In this case, with the information provided about what the character and the player knows, it works for me. If it was obvious that the character would have known better, despite the attentiveness or statements of the player, it would be different. That doesn't mean you have to agree with me. This type of discussion will never yield a consensus simply because there are too many variables, too many different approaches to the game. That's just fine. The only consensus that matters is the one at your table.

This is an interpretation of somebody else's game. In many cases it's largely irrelevant as a comparison to a game you might run as a DM, because you would do things differently. You would have described things differently, you would have interacted differently, you might have had different checks, you undoubtedly would have envisioned exactly what was going on differently. But it's extremely interesting to expand your perspective to see what others think. It can be helpful in your game, either as a DM to come to a conclusion as to whether a scenario like this works for you or not, and if it does how you'd handle it so it's fair. As a player it's also good to consider that not everybody will have the same perspective, and what you might do to avoid a situation like this, or how you might react, or react differently in the future.

My descriptions aren't an attempt to convince anybody that my interpretation is correct. They are simply to show that we don't all interpret things the same way, we envision what is happening differently, and that there are many 100% valid interpretations of what is right here. I approached those descriptions in what, based on my personal experiences, seemed the most logical, while making the fewest assumptions possible. Again, somebody else would have different conclusions because they have different life experiences and assumptions.

The discussion has moved largely beyond constructive, helpful input to petty unhelpful attacks. I don't know if there's a way to lock a thread, but I would certainly recommend it. I think there's a lot of very interesting, helpful, and enlightening discussion in this thread. But at this point it has grown so long that nobody new is going to go through it to glean anything from it. They'll jump to the end and see the useless attacks and attempts at humor. While amusing, they really don't help anybody learn anything which is too bad.

Ilbranteloth

 

[pemerton]

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.

I think this does get to the core.

Is keeping track of the bundling stuff an aspect of play that is worth improving in? Personally I don't think so. (Nor need combat be, but in D&D it's hard to ignore it. But there are other RPGs which allow combat to be resolved without having to think about tactics.)

 

[FrogReaver]

It matters how the players perceived the scene to be going down. If they came away with a drastically different image than the dm then that is proof of ambiguity.

It is my belief that in the case where the players thought one thing happened and the dm thought another that the players are right. In the future it is the Dms job to better clarify a situation so the players and dm end up on the same side.

As Aaron pointed out saying I sell the armor set, yes all of it, isn't a clear indication that the guantlets and ring were being included by the player or his character.

In short give your players tithe benefit of a doubt that they aren't doing something stupid until proven otherwise. I also believe that the dm was trying to clarify the situation with the blacksmiths question and probably thought he had sufficiently done so by asking that question. So i don't think it was an intentional act of preying on a vague situation. I do think in retrospect it should have easily been apparent that the issue was one of clarification at the time

One final thing, it's better to clarify more and risk the players catching on through your clarification attempts than it is to clarify less and make them feel like you screwed them over In a vague or ambiguous situation.

 

[Aura]

I'm sorry, I ran low on time for this thread and, due to responsibilities elsewhere, don't think I can reasonably catch up. Apologies to those I was in mid conversation with. TTFN