D&D 5E Was I in the wrong?

[Sunseeker]

This is a really hostile way to approach things, and for a lot of us, that degree of "pay attention" is not physically compatible with how our brains work. Even medicated, I simply can't keep track of things consistently; stuff just sorta slips my mind. Even really obvious stuff. Even stuff I care about.

Luckily for me, I play with adults who are more interested in having fun than showing off how not-disabled they are, and everything works out fine, because if something's obviously inconsistent with what's immediately obvious to my character, the GM or another player will usually prompt me about it.

I really do agree with both sides on this, but it's a matter if how you go about it. Someone who can remember but chooses to not bother doesn't get to use the DM as a backup drive. Someone who can't but makes an effort to try is free to ask me to remind them. Even someone who can remember and tries to do so is free to ask me.

Players shouldn't expect the DM to just store their data for them like the DM is some kind of cloud storage for their saved games. People who have difficulty remembering, regardless of if they are disabled, should make an effort to write things down. My wife as fibomailgya and a terrible memory from it, so she write sticky notes to herself. And in the end what really matters is how you approach your DM about the reminder. Typically, expecting people to do something for you is a bad form of communication....because it isn't. Noone wants to play mind reader.

 

[Ristamar]

I think there are also some people in this discussion who categorically reject a particular kind of traditional D&D/Roleplaying, where the players are expected to keep notes and pay close attention, and the GM does very little to assist them or hold their hand through this process.

GMs of this school will not usually remind you of important data. If they tell you a prophecy and you don't write it down, they aren't going to read it off for you when you forget what it said 2 months later. They may also refuse to remind you of your deadline for the end of the world, or the name of the guy you're looking for, or whatever.

GMs of this style aren't going to show you a map that leads you out of a dungeon, so if you aren't mapping as you go... Good luck with that.

It's a particular style, not for everyone. Not usually one that I employ, either. But a lot of people prefer it.

This situation seems like one of the above writ small. I think a lot of the people in the two camps coming down hard on one side or the other probably have a strong opinion about the merits of the style of GMing detailed above.

I do agree that some groups relish this type of game, and they usually have at least an unspoken social contract amongst the table (if not a binder full of house rules) about how things are generally handled in any given encounter. A very strict, nuanced game that requires players make good maps, take meticulous notes, and be very particular with their wording of actions may seem punitive to most outside observers.

If that's the case, and the OP runs a tight ship of which his players are well aware and accustomed, then I'll abandon my previous statements and shift the blame solely to the players. However, I didn't get the impression that was the type of game the OP was running. It seemed more like a sudden shift of expectations on the DM's side rather than a player error in the established expectations of play.

 

[Shasarak]

Then you should pay attention in your games. It's not the DM's responsibility to be your memory.

Actually, since the DM is responsible for describing the game environment, it really is the DMs responsibility.

Of course this whole scenario could have been stopped if the party had cast detect magic like every other party ever in the history of DnD.

 

[MostlyDm]

I do agree that some groups relish this type of game, and they usually have at least an unspoken social contract amongst the table (if not a binder full of house rules) about how things are generally handled in any given encounter. A very strict, nuanced game that requires players make good maps, take meticulous notes, and be very particular with their wording of actions may seem punitive to most outside observers.

If that's the case, and the OP runs a tight ship of which his players are well aware and accustomed, then I'll abandon my previous statements and shift the blame solely to the players. However, I didn't get the impression that was the type of game the OP was running. It seemed more like a sudden shift of expectations on the DM's side rather than a player error in the established expectations of play.

That's plausible.

I do think many people inadvertently bounce between the two sides at times, not fully committing to one camp or the other. Or even necessarily recognizing that there are two delineated styles here.

That sort of inconsistency can be frustrating for players. But in general inconsistent expectations of play, on both sides, may be a common problem. Just based on issues I see brought up in forums.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Not when it's physically attached to the armor. Then it's largely a decoration, even if it has other intrinsic value. They attempted to remove it to start with. So they knew at that point it was part of the gauntlets. At least until they determine a way to remove it.

It was described as being stuck on the gauntlet. Whether the players interpreted that as not being able to get it off, not being able to get it off easily, or whatever, they didn't realize that in selling the armor they would also be selling the ring. The situation, thus, wasn't framed in such a way as they thought the ring was a part of the armor any more than you would believe that the ring was part of the spell scrolls it was holding in a bundle.

The important thing here, at least what I think is important, is that the players never understood that they had never separated the items. Now, I guess it is an exercise to the reader whether that is due to some fault on the players' end or the DM's end. However, what I tend to focus on is that as soon as the players thought that they had separated the items and the DM thought they hadn't, and someone realized this inconsistency, it should have been addressed. Immediately addressed. Because, the fiction as the players understood it was incorrect, and they were operating under a set of beliefs in something that their PCs had done which they should have known that their PCs didn't actually do. Because what the DM thinks is true is true, and the players don't have that luxury of certainty in anything in the game world that the DM has.

As long as it's attached it is part of the suit of armor. Just as if a holy symbol was attached to the breast plate.

Nor do I think that the DM intentionally misled the player. From the time that they picked up the armor to the time they sold it, all it would have taken was a single player to say "let's sell the armor but keep the gauntlets and the ring." At any time. It wasn't just a single moment when somebody was playing on their phone, it was an extended period of time, with a subtle reminder by the DM.

I really don't think it's the players' responsibility to specifically describe to the DM every detail of what they are not doing, which is what you describe here. I say, let it be enough that they describe what they are doing, and if at some point there is a misunderstanding as to what people meant then it can be handled amicably to the satisfaction of everyone.

 

[Aura]

A few things keep coming up, and rather than reply to specific people, I'll just mention them in a generalized way. My same caveat applies: I don't think the DM intended to screw the players or any such thing. I feel he got a little excited about his plot hook he was formulating in his mind and didn't realize he was missing opportunities to give relevant information. So, at times, I'm commenting on those that are defending the actions on the premise that are correct and not a mistake--or, to put another way, that they would be acceptable if done intentionally.

The Set of Armor tip-off discussion:

I see people occasionally mention the DM's subtle tip off to the player that he was about to make a mistake, when the blacksmith asks if he wants to sell the whole thing. Although the DM may have regarded it that way, a quick look at two scenarios quickly leads to this being a non-issue. Here is the two scenarios:
(1) The PC unpacks and offers to sell a full suit of armor, with obviously mismatched gauntlets and a ring stuck to them
(2) The PC unpacks and offers to sell a full suit of armor
For this discussion, it is important to note that most armors, particularly full plate armor, are, in reality, sets of items. Breastplate, greaves, vambraces, etc, etc, etc. This is a pain in the butt notation-wise, so we, as gamers, use short-hand descriptions like 'full-plate armor'. However, the game world is very aware of the fact it is a set of discrete items. So in the two scenarios above, the blacksmith could very likely say, in character, the exact same thing. Because it's a legitimate question in either scenario, it is a tip off to nothing in particular. To contend the game system says otherwise is to expect the blacksmith to use game lingo when speaking in character, so I do not find that argument very convincing.

The Supposedly Inattentive Seller discussion:

This one keeps coming up, so make this clear. Yes, there is a general player attentiveness issue at the table, and in the previous scene mistakes were made and things forgotten. However, in the blacksmith scene, the ranger(seller) does not seem to exhibit this to any real degree. In fact, it's quite the opposite--he is apparently interested enough in what he is selling to make an Int roll to appraise it. Given this sort of action is hugely based on sensory input, it's starting to be really difficult to understand how the DM can, in good faith, knowingly deny him the information that he's actually offering unintended items as his character is, in fact, carefully examining them in an attempt to evaluate them. It's also worth mentioning he almost assuredly handled the items himself. To knowingly deny any appropriate rolls (and I also entertain the chance of noticing the mismatched gauntlets and ring are quite high) on the basis of a previous mistake is simply being punitive.

Two tie these two issues together, the DM has replaced relevant sensory information with a subtle non-clue. From the impartial DM perspective, this clearly constitutes an DM error. The only way for it not to be an error is if we don't view the DM as a storyteller, or a impartial judge, and instead take a more adversarial role, as championed by some posters. Which leads us to:

The Gaming Style discussion:
So some have contended that the DM's actions are justifiable within certain gaming styles. This discussion is sufficiently involved I'm not going to take a position on said styles. However, I will point out assuming some specific gaming style in defense of the DM's actions isn't relevant unless we have good reason to believe the group actually plays in said style. Not only are we lacking for any evidence of the sorts of styles they speak of, but the very fact the DM's actions caused disagreement is a good indicator that the opposite is true. If they shared whatever gaming style is required to attempt to justify the DM's actions, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. (Note to @Ilbranteloth - I am not against any one of these particular styles, but I am against assuming their relevance to this discussion, for the above reasons.)

As an aside, I think [MENTION=1207]Ristamar[/MENTION] made an excellent comment when discussing the sorts of gaming styles people are invoking. They are really the sorts of things that should be understood by the group as a whole, and discussed, if necessary. Have a discussion about it, hash out the pro's and con's, etc. Even if everyone can't perfectly agree, knowing what others (particularly the DM) thinks is useful.

 

[Maxperson]

This is a really hostile way to approach things, and for a lot of us, that degree of "pay attention" is not physically compatible with how our brains work. Even medicated, I simply can't keep track of things consistently; stuff just sorta slips my mind. Even really obvious stuff. Even stuff I care about.

Luckily for me, I play with adults who are more interested in having fun than showing off how not-disabled they are, and everything works out fine, because if something's obviously inconsistent with what's immediately obvious to my character, the GM or another player will usually prompt me about it.

That's a rather silly assumption to make on your part. Nobody here is talking about people with mental problems to the point where they cannot remember. We're talking about the average person.

 

[Maxperson]

Actually, since the DM is responsible for describing the game environment, it really is the DMs responsibility.

Memory is neither game environment, or something the DM describes. So no, it's not the DM's responsibility to be your memory.

Of course this whole scenario could have been stopped if the party had cast detect magic like every other party ever in the history of DnD.

This is true.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Again, I feel it is important to point out that this isn't a case of the player remembering or not remembering something - that's not relevant at all.

It's a case of the player saying a phrase that could have meant two different things and the DM not only not having the player clarify which meaning they intended by pointing out that they as DM find the meaning of the stated action ambiguous, but also choosing the meaning of the two possible that was less favorable to the player, and then following that up with an insistence that the DM's taken meaning is the thing that counts, not what the player clearly meant to be doing, when it became obvious there was a mismatch between what the players and DM thought had transpired.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Well it's not even that. It's the case of a character looking at something and the player being expected to remember what it looked like to some other character some time ago instead of being told what it looks like.