D&D 5E Was I in the wrong?

[Lejaun]

You also have to keep in mind that the players do not have "hands on" what they find in the game or what they do. Just like the scenario presented earlier where a player says that he is charging the enemy but the DM says you fall into a pit that you forgot and die is actually very similar to this case. Why would the players even trust the judgement of a blacksmith on the value of a ring instead of a jeweler?

If the players are selling things for gold, they aren't just plunking down a bag and giving it to the smith. He's going to inspect the armor after the PC's take out the armor and watch him. The DM should have reminded the players just what they were doing.

Blacksmith: Hmm, this is an interesting suit of armor you have. It is well made, but the gauntlets seem to be a bit different than the rest of the armor with strange writings on them. Are you selling the entire set of this adamantine armor as well as these strange gauntlets and ring attached to it?
Player: Yes, that is that agreed upon deal.

That's a bit different than the scenario that seems to have happened.
Blacksmith: Do you want to sell the whole set of armor? (not mentioning the ring or gauntlets that don't quite match the rest of the armor)
Player: Yes, that is the agreed upon deal.

 

[Maxperson]

You also have to keep in mind that the players do not have "hands on" what they find in the game or what they do. Just like the scenario presented earlier where a player says that he is charging the enemy but the DM says you fall into a pit that you forgot and die is actually very similar to this case. Why would the players even trust the judgement of a blacksmith on the value of a ring instead of a jeweler?

If the players are selling things for gold, they aren't just plunking down a bag and giving it to the smith. He's going to inspect the armor after the PC's take out the armor and watch him. The DM should have reminded the players just what they were doing.

Blacksmith: Hmm, this is an interesting suit of armor you have. It is well made, but the gauntlets seem to be a bit different than the rest of the armor with strange writings on them. Are you selling the entire set of this adamantine armor as well as these strange gauntlets and ring attached to it?
Player: Yes, that is that agreed upon deal.

That's a bit different than the scenario that seems to have happened.
Blacksmith: Do you want to sell the whole set of armor? (not mentioning the ring or gauntlets that don't quite match the rest of the armor)
Player: Yes, that is the agreed upon deal.

Why do you assume that all blacksmiths have integrity and would bring attention to the gauntlets like that?

 

[FrogReaver]

Straw men often are rediculous

Your games must move at a glacial pace if the obvious has to be constantly restated every time the PCs visit a new location.

" You defeat the big boss. Now you have a set of armor, gauntlets, a longsword, a longbow, and a ring."


" You travel back to town. Now you have a set of armor, gauntlets, a longsword, a longbow, and a ring."


" You stop by the provision shop so the ranger can buy arrows. Now you have 60 arrows, a set of armor, gauntlets, a longsword, a longbow, and a ring."


" You head to the inn for supper. Now you have 60 arrows, a set of armor, gauntlets, a longsword, a longbow, and a ring."

AND A PARTRIDGE IN A PEAR TREE!!!

Sounds ridiculous to me.

 

[Lejaun]

Your games must move at a glacial pace if the obvious has to be constantly restated every time the PCs visit a new location.

" You defeat the big boss. Now you have a set of armor, gauntlets, a longsword, a longbow, and a ring."


" You travel back to town. Now you have a set of armor, gauntlets, a longsword, a longbow, and a ring."


" You stop by the provision shop so the ranger can buy arrows. Now you have 60 arrows, a set of armor, gauntlets, a longsword, a longbow, and a ring."


" You head to the inn for supper. Now you have 60 arrows, a set of armor, gauntlets, a longsword, a longbow, and a ring."

AND A PARTRIDGE IN A PEAR TREE!!!

Sounds ridiculous to me.

Using that as how its presented is ridiculous. Having a blacksmith that knows nothing about the items to be sold yet immediately recognizes its value after the sale is ridiculous when its placed in the same scenario that the DM is mad at players for out of game activity.

 

[Lejaun]

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.

Exactly. This a thousand times over.

 

[Noctem]

First, If we are talking 5th edition and playing by the book, the characters should have been fully aware what was and wasn't magical due to the handling of an item being enough to sense there is something extraordinary about the item even if it is otherwise indistinguishable from a normal item of its type. Changing that to make it harder to tell what is or isn't magical feels, to me, like a bad move - it opens to door to frustrated players, and doesn't add anything worth said frustration to the experience.

Also, it sounds like you've changed the rules that any character can spend a short rest identifying the properties of any magic item. That again feels, to me, like a bad move - again because it adds opportunity for player frustration (usually in the way of "write that down for later" and then forgetting it), but not something actually worth that frustration.

Then, you arrive at the other choices you made. Each an opportunity to open the door to player frustration and seem like you are "against" the players, or to appear as though you are "with" the players by helping them be aware of what their characters' actions are actually doing.

The ring shouldn't be stuck on the gauntlet. Magical rings resize to fit their wearer, so all someone would have to do is put the gauntlet on and take the ring off of it. You made it seem like that wasn't possible, and I think that's a bad move.

The player clearer wasn't aware that the blacksmith was asking "...so, I get the gauntlets and that ring too if I buy this armor for that price?" So you seem to have deliberately pulled a "gotcha" on the player - that is, in my opinion, always a bad move. You could have at least provided some opportunity for the character to realize someone was pulling one over on him, even though the player wasn't aware.

Then, you appeared to your players to be suggesting that you were going to pull another "gotcha" with the open door. As I said before, I always think "gotcha" is a bad move.

To summarize: Yes, I feel you were in the wrong handling things the way you did. You were aware the player wasn't paying full attention because you saw the player "glued to the phone", and you chose to punish that behavior with in-game consequences when you could have chosen to make up for the player's lack of attention with in-game activities (rolling insight, at the very least, though I'd personally have gone with a reminder of circumstances).

Of course, saying that you were in the wrong doing what you did is not me saying that the phone-using player wasn't also in the wrong by not paying sufficient attention. However, that's a thing solved by talking with the player to figure out how to proceed (i.e. without the phone at the table, or perhaps with the phone but without you expecting so much from a player that is not as interested in the whole game as you wish he was - like how I no longer expect my chronically late friend to arrive on time, but also no longer put my self in a position to have to wait for him to arrive).

So much this. You made a BUNCH of terrible decisions. You're not against your players man. You're not there to pull a fast one on your group when you CLEARLY knew what their intentions were. Next session you should apologize to the group and then rectify the items debacle by giving them back the gauntlet and ring they didn't want to sell that way. Then promise to knock it off with the gotcha stuff. Man, you would of gotten an ear full if I was in that game.

 

[Halivar]

You have to separate PC knowledge from player knowledge; otherwise it's meta-gaming, and meta-gaming leads to ridiculous narratives. The PLAYER forgot about the ring and gauntlets; but did the player's CHARACTER? You need to decide what makes rational sense, and retcon where necessary. The fear of retconning can sometimes lead us to double down on silly narratives that leave players and DM's alike disappointed and bitter.

Fix the situation with a retcon so the outcomes are sensible and non-metagame.

 

[devincutler]

A player on the phone when a DM is running a session is HIGHLY rude. It is one of many examples where players have no idea how hard it is to DM and give it no respect. The game is there for EVERYONE at the table to have fun, including the DM. DMing when someone isn't paying attention to you is not fun.

In short, screw that player, he deserves to have lost the magic items and it should be explained to him that the best way to avoid such mishaps in the future is to pay attention and stay off of the phone.

 

[ExploderWizard]

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.

This sounds like a blanket excuse for players to never have to pay attention to whats going on in the game.

" Well my character would have blah blah blah."

How about listening to whats happening, making notes about important stuff, and keeping up with whats going on.

Real time differences are another matter. If you are picking up play from last session (which was a month ago in our time) but no time has elapsed for the characters, giving a recap to refresh the memories of the players is certainly in order.

Having to remind players of important stuff that happened in that very same session because the players aren't paying attention isn't the DMs job. Players can learn to become better too. Maybe losing some sweet loot is the fire that they needed lit under them to do that.

I think the OP should take a stand and let the players reap the consequences of of their inattention.

 

[Maxperson]

Using that as how its presented is ridiculous. Having a blacksmith that knows nothing about the items to be sold yet immediately recognizes its value after the sale is ridiculous when its placed in the same scenario that the DM is mad at players for out of game activity.

Naturally they went back to the blacksmith but he told them it had been a legitimate deal and that the gauntlets (which he didn't know about until then) and the ring were sold to him fairly, that he asked if the ranger was selling the whole thing and that it wasn't his fault the elf wasn't paying attention.

He didn't recognize the value beyond "There's a ring here." and the gauntlets weren't known about at all until the PCs returned and told him. Any idiot will know that armor + ring is more valuable than just armor.