D&D 5E Was I in the wrong?
Oh I don't mind players messing up at all. Sometimes very unforseen and interesting circumstances are created.
But in this case we are talking about miscommunication. The players themselves later refer to wanting to investigate the ring; hence it has always been in their mind (and perception of the campaign) that they still had it.
But in this case we are talking about miscommunication. The players themselves later refer to wanting to investigate the ring; hence it has always been in their mind (and perception of the campaign) that they still had it.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
Adults would laugh at the error on the part of the players and move on to roleplaying possible solutions. Quitters aren't acting like adults, especially when they were the ones that made the error.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
All that means is that they forgot they bundled it up. It was not a miscommunication, but rather a mistake on their part that they forgot that they (not the DM) bundled the ring with the armor. Did they think they still had it? Yes. Were they wrong? Yes. That's what being mistaken is.
GameOgre
Adventurer
No DM EVER has done a great job of being the eyes and ears of the players in the game world. It just isn't possible. Every single second of game play the players are effectively missing thousands of different clues as to what is going on in the player characters game world.
Is the blood running down that orc hit with the arrow a lot of blood for that wound? Not enough blood? What color is that blood? What does it smell like? Does it seem to be stopping or steady?
Did nearby birds take flight once battle started? Did that magic missile damage any vegetation as it traveled tot he orc?
What smell is coming from the wind blowing from behind the player characters?
As DM's we do our best but we fail every single second that we play the game. Because of this the DM has a obligation to act as a warning system to his players and player characters. Stress important decisions and always give the pc's chances after you warn them to back off.
The Player isn't really standing in a room buying and selling his goods with a npc. He can't really SEE and feel the gear in question, he can't smell the dried blood still clinging to the armor of his defeated foe. He can't feel the tingle of magic or feel the weight difference in magical armor. YOU the DM have to knock him over the head with important issues like this.
"are you sure you want to sell this gear? Remember it contains that gauntlet and ring you guys were talking about" is NOT wrong.
Is the blood running down that orc hit with the arrow a lot of blood for that wound? Not enough blood? What color is that blood? What does it smell like? Does it seem to be stopping or steady?
Did nearby birds take flight once battle started? Did that magic missile damage any vegetation as it traveled tot he orc?
What smell is coming from the wind blowing from behind the player characters?
As DM's we do our best but we fail every single second that we play the game. Because of this the DM has a obligation to act as a warning system to his players and player characters. Stress important decisions and always give the pc's chances after you warn them to back off.
The Player isn't really standing in a room buying and selling his goods with a npc. He can't really SEE and feel the gear in question, he can't smell the dried blood still clinging to the armor of his defeated foe. He can't feel the tingle of magic or feel the weight difference in magical armor. YOU the DM have to knock him over the head with important issues like this.
"are you sure you want to sell this gear? Remember it contains that gauntlet and ring you guys were talking about" is NOT wrong.
Noctem
Explorer
Not only that but the DM has a responsibility NOT to play the gotcha game with his players considering that he controls all of the information the players base their decisions on. AND he knew from the get go that the players only want to sell the armor, not the gauntlet or ring. So he totally played them. And he did so because he was annoyed about a guy using his cell phone. Bad DM. Replace him for a while so he can get his stuff together.
Last edited:
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
Well, I haven't read most of the thread, so I dunno everything that's developed since. So, here's my take from it:
Telling us the lead-in story about the 'problem player' who's always engrossed with his phone definitely struck me as an effort to provide "justifying background" for what you chose to do here. While that's neither here nor there for whether you were wrong or not, it communicates some perception that your actions did need to be justified.
I don't think it was wise to avoid letting people know what was or wasn't magical. Identifying items is quite easy in 5e (not quite as easy as 4e, but close). While it may seem like an opportunity to you, that kind of uncertainty hanging over a party's heads can already be a sore spot. That is, for players who aren't completely on board with it, it can feel like adding a new onerous task after having already completed a major objective; "we won the fight, why make us wait to reap the spoils?!" kind of thing. There are definitely players that don't mind that at all, and players that like it a lot, but I think the shift towards more easily-identified, quickly-employed items is an important paradigm shift in the D&D (& related games) community that shouldn't be opposed lightly.
I think you did do your Ranger's player a disservice by failing to explain what "the full set" meant. While the player might have forgotten, the character almost certainly would not have. They all clearly noticed the ring fixed on the finger, you made sure of that, so it would be the pinnacle of foolish, self-detrimental behavior for the Ranger (character) to forget something they had specifically earmarked as important. I am generally quite able to maintain attention in a game (my bigger problem is usually that I have too much room, so I look for other, little things to do to fill up time while I keep track of what others are doing), but I can be very absent-minded. It's possible--not likely, but possible--that I could have made a similar mistake, and I would certainly feel upset if you had done this to me.
It was an interesting idea to turn the unfortunate situation into a plot opportunity, but it might have been better to take a slightly different tack. E.g. the blacksmith admits that he cheated the Ranger out of the true worth of the item, but isn't quite willing to just hand it back over since it was a legitimate, agreed-upon deal. So, instead, he offers an exchange: "Bring me something I could work into a masterpiece of my own, and I'll let you have it back, with the money in exchange." That turns the fiasco into an outward-facing, potentially plot-generating quest, rather than an inward-facing, how-dare-you-cheat-me situation.
So, in short: I think you made an potentially-unwise, but understandable, move in making the items difficult to identify; I think it was an unwise move to do nothing more than ask about "the whole set" without being any more specific than that (since, as others have said, "set" is often used just for an "individual" equipment item, e.g. "set of full plate" even though that doesn't typically include gloves, boots, helm, etc.); and I think that while it was a good thing to make it a plot opportunity, your specific execution of it (from what was said in the OP) left something to be desired. That the allegedly "culpable" player has issues with being distracted during your games neither justifies nor mitigates this.
Or, if you really want it short: You set the group up for a fall, and then got surprised when they were upset at being set up so. Blaming cell-phone guy for misunderstanding your intentionally vague terms pushes it over the line in my book.
Telling us the lead-in story about the 'problem player' who's always engrossed with his phone definitely struck me as an effort to provide "justifying background" for what you chose to do here. While that's neither here nor there for whether you were wrong or not, it communicates some perception that your actions did need to be justified.
I don't think it was wise to avoid letting people know what was or wasn't magical. Identifying items is quite easy in 5e (not quite as easy as 4e, but close). While it may seem like an opportunity to you, that kind of uncertainty hanging over a party's heads can already be a sore spot. That is, for players who aren't completely on board with it, it can feel like adding a new onerous task after having already completed a major objective; "we won the fight, why make us wait to reap the spoils?!" kind of thing. There are definitely players that don't mind that at all, and players that like it a lot, but I think the shift towards more easily-identified, quickly-employed items is an important paradigm shift in the D&D (& related games) community that shouldn't be opposed lightly.
I think you did do your Ranger's player a disservice by failing to explain what "the full set" meant. While the player might have forgotten, the character almost certainly would not have. They all clearly noticed the ring fixed on the finger, you made sure of that, so it would be the pinnacle of foolish, self-detrimental behavior for the Ranger (character) to forget something they had specifically earmarked as important. I am generally quite able to maintain attention in a game (my bigger problem is usually that I have too much room, so I look for other, little things to do to fill up time while I keep track of what others are doing), but I can be very absent-minded. It's possible--not likely, but possible--that I could have made a similar mistake, and I would certainly feel upset if you had done this to me.
It was an interesting idea to turn the unfortunate situation into a plot opportunity, but it might have been better to take a slightly different tack. E.g. the blacksmith admits that he cheated the Ranger out of the true worth of the item, but isn't quite willing to just hand it back over since it was a legitimate, agreed-upon deal. So, instead, he offers an exchange: "Bring me something I could work into a masterpiece of my own, and I'll let you have it back, with the money in exchange." That turns the fiasco into an outward-facing, potentially plot-generating quest, rather than an inward-facing, how-dare-you-cheat-me situation.
So, in short: I think you made an potentially-unwise, but understandable, move in making the items difficult to identify; I think it was an unwise move to do nothing more than ask about "the whole set" without being any more specific than that (since, as others have said, "set" is often used just for an "individual" equipment item, e.g. "set of full plate" even though that doesn't typically include gloves, boots, helm, etc.); and I think that while it was a good thing to make it a plot opportunity, your specific execution of it (from what was said in the OP) left something to be desired. That the allegedly "culpable" player has issues with being distracted during your games neither justifies nor mitigates this.
Or, if you really want it short: You set the group up for a fall, and then got surprised when they were upset at being set up so. Blaming cell-phone guy for misunderstanding your intentionally vague terms pushes it over the line in my book.
Up until now I've upheld that there was no error based on the information in the OP. Now that there is more detail I am of the opinion that the Ranger's Int roll may have prevented him from selling the ring and gauntlet as a set. He asked about the gauntlet's value and rolled well. The ring should be mentioned because it is attached to the gauntlet and a reasonable person would value the gauntlet, notice the ring and ensure it is not part of the sum.
The DM is not obligated to be Captain Obvious and if he was it'd probably be a boring game. Tying statements to emphasize the singular focus of the appraisal would have had greater effect. In this case, "The gauntlet's value is..." is weaker than "The gauntlet itself is valued at...", "The gauntlet alone is valued at..." in establishing that the character is making a choice with full presence of mind.
Both DMs and players need to be careful with semantics but if you can recuperate swiftly then chalk it up as a learning experience. It seems you have done so and are moving forward. That is good.
L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
Last edited by a moderator:
Halivar
First Post
Eh, put Cell Phone Guy in charge for a while. If he's as bad as he's made out, they'll clamor for the old DM.
Similar Threads
