D&D 5E Was I in the wrong?

[FrogReaver]

People are coming to conclusions. Some on this thread ASSUME the merchant scene was all spur of the moment. For all anyone on thread know the GM has notes on the city/town and in those notes the merchant is written down as a 'shady' character.

Then dm should clue players into his shady actions. He did not.

 

[FrogReaver]

Basically every scenario you want to put forth we can always answer the same. If it was something shady, bad, out of the ordinary then the dm should have framed the scene with clues as to those elements.

 

[Maxperson]

Then dm should clue players into his shady actions. He did not.

Shady people who are blatantly shady are not successful. There should have perhaps been an equivalent to a sense motive roll, but no more than that and the shady should not have been guaranteed to be picked up by the players.

 

[FrogReaver]

Shady people who are blatantly shady are not successful. There should have perhaps been an equivalent to a sense motive roll, but no more than that and the shady should not have been guaranteed to be picked up by the players.

Then it was a gotcha as the players had no chance to interact with the scene and avoid selling things they didn't intend to sell.

 

[pemerton]

Adventure and roleplaying to get the items back is lots and lots more fun than, "You get X gold for selling the plate."

It makes for a far better story, too.

Is there an assumption that, absent this "adventure", the campaign would have come to an end?

For my part, I can think of dozens of more interesting things to do in a D&D game than getting items back from a blacksmith whom I otherwise wouldn't even care about except that the GM mishandled an episode of selling equipment.

 

[ThirdWizard]

For things that don't matter, like wiping your rear and every other example you just gave, a check isn't necessary, because IT DOESN'T MATTER. The player can decide. For something of importance where the PC is about to screw the pooch, but is intelligent enough that he's got a good chance to remember, I'll give the roll. It matters and the PC is not the player and vice versa.

I don't know. You're more likely to remember big important things than the small stuff. I'd be more likely to ask for an Int check on "what did I eat for breakfast yesterday" than "when the cultist said we would die, was it by fire or disease?" Seems like the latter I would be waaaay more likely to remember, if real life* is any indication.

* Note: I don't often run into cultists in real life.

 

[psychophipps]

For my part, I can think of dozens of more interesting things to do in a D&D game than getting items back from a blacksmith whom I otherwise wouldn't even care about except that the GM mishandled an episode of selling equipment.

Exactly. The job of the DM is to help the players tell a fun and (hopefully at least every once in a while) exciting story. If they have strayed from this, especially as a way to get back at a player at the expense of the other players, then they have fundamentally failed.
It took me a while to realize this, but once you wise up and realize that the DM's job is absolutely *not* to "Be the boss" then your game will be far better for it. Your job as DM is to submit to the players wants without allowing any one character to monopolize the story, adapt to the character actions driving the story, and keep your responses within the boundaries of the agreed upon ruleset and in the best interest of the player's story.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Then it was a gotcha as the players had no chance to interact with the scene and avoid selling things they didn't intend to sell.

Of course they had a chance to interact with the scene. More importantly, they had plenty of opportunity between discovering the armor and selling it to mention that they were considering them separately. I'm not disagreeing that the DM could have done better. Meaning they could have allowed other checks, probably some passive ones, without coming right out an asking about the gauntlets or the ring.

More importantly, as I re-read the expanded post:

Here's the whole development...

Dungeon Boss' Room
The boss was a powerful ghost controlling a suit of armor. He had a hatred for High-Elves (and saw wood elves as his brethren) and spent the whole fight knocking the ranger (only high elf) out, though the party kept feeding him potions. Before it dies, the boss KOs the Sorcerer and the Ranger. It then dies, dramatically calling out to the Wood Elf (the monk) before the ghost fades and the armor+weapons all fall to the floor.
The two party members still standing (Barbarian and Monk) rejoice. Then they remember that their friends are dying and proceed to help them up.
The ranger and the sorcerer both rush to check on the children (that had been kidnapped by the ghost) but sadly realize that they had taken far too long and they were already dead. Meanwhile, the barbarian and the monk check the loot. I inform them that the sword has several magical runes as well as the ring and the gauntlets, indicating that they might be magical. The ranger and the sorcerer return to the loot and a discussion about the sword takes place. They find a statue with a sword similar to what the boss holds and the sorcerer realizes the legend behind these swords of wounding (he rolled high on a History check). While the ranger and sorcerer talk about the sword next to the statue, the barbarian picks it up. The ghost guardian warns them to release the sword and she comically drops it instantly. The curious ranger tells the barbarian to try picking it up again, she listens to him and does so. The guardian ghost appears and combat takes place.
Once again, the barbarian and the monk are the only ones standing (the sorcerer and ranger were weakened from the previous battle). They destroy the ghost and wake their friends up once again. The sorcerer realizes (rolled high on arcana) that the sword likely has a curse that binds the ghost to it, causing it to attack anyone that holds it. Meanwhile, the barbarian decides and tells me that he's bundling the whole armor set up with rope and will take care of it later since everyone was focused on how to deal with the sword (I make sure to remind him that the gauntlets and the ring are included with the bundle).
The party decides to leave the premises, taking the loot and the dead children. Before they leave, I casually remind them that they barely explored the dungeon (having gone almost straight toward the boss' room). They ignore me and leave (meaning they missed out on several treasures).

*funeral ensues, party is thanked for their work. Fast-forward back to the city.*

City
The party splits up, the Monk and the Barbarian go to the temple to report on their mission. The Ranger goes to sell/appraise items. The Sorcerer was distracted with his phone and absentmindedly said he'd go with the others to the temple when asked.

The Ranger first chooses to go to the magic shop, but the rest of the party remind him that they do not have any money for identification spells. He goes to the blacksmith instead.
At the blacksmith (a half-orc they already know from before) he presents the bundled up armor. The blacksmith studies it, making note that the armor is very damaged (from the battles) and it would lower the price. At the mention of the price being lowered, the ranger asks if he can make a int check to learn how much such an armor would go for, he rolls well. The half-orc notices the magical ring and immediately asks "Are you looking to sell the whole thing?" to which the ranger immediately says yes. The blacksmith offers a price, the ranger isn't too sure since it was lower than expected. The blacksmith argues that with the damage would lower the price and he still needed to make a profit. The ranger still seems to have a hard time agreeing. The blacksmith quickly adds that it's money up-front. The ranger agrees.
The ranger then shows the mithral sword, saying it is from an ancient kingdom. The blacksmith offers a price, but the ranger isn't pleased and the blacksmith does not argue and lets him go.
The ranger asks around for collectors, finds out the half-orc owner of the magic shop (another person they had met before) is a collector as well. He goes to the magic shop and asks for an identification on the cursed set of half-plate armor (they had gotten in a previous mission) and on the sword of wounding. Identification is made and information is provided. The ranger then tries to sell the mithral sword, gets a better price than the blacksmith had offered. Finally he tries to sell the cursed armor, the magic shop owner offers a petty sum, claiming that the work it would take to break the curse would be expensive and laborious. The ranger sells it anyway (completely forgetting that the barbarian wanted to fashion an shoulder guard from the armor once they finally managed to de-curse it).

*during the shopping trip, the monk and barbarian were talking among each other out of character and the sorcerer was on his phone like usual*

...

Session ends with them drinking to both celebrate their accomplishments and drown their sorrows for losing loot.

Emphasis mine in the above quote.

Only the barbarian and the monk actually investigated and handled the armor before giving it to the ranger to sell. I would guess that at his table, the DM didn't separate the players, and they all had the opportunity to hear about the gauntlets. There is no indication that the barbarian pointed them out to the ranger at any point between the time they found them and he sold them. I do this to make things simple, under the assumption that when the characters get back together they will share information. But, that benefit of not having to repeat what I've told them comes at a cost of either paying attention, or reminding each other what's important in the situation. Again, if somebody had written something down, I'd have something more to work with. If the barbarian had said, "I give the armor to the ranger, but keep the gauntlets," or "I'm giving the armor to the ranger" and then tells the ranger not to forget the gauntlets, check to see if the ring is magical, or any number of variations that indicate that they are considering them as important separately. The monk and barbarian could also have mentioned something when they sent the ranger off to sell them, and had they been paying attention during the transaction, they could have said something then. Yes, it's meta-gaming since they aren't there for the transaction, but to me it's no different than the ranger being present to hear what the barbarian and monk found, should he care to pay attention.

Even if the ranger could see the gauntlets, and might have seen the ring (or might not), the differences between the gauntlets and the rest of the suit of armor may not have been obvious without close examination. At the time the ranger was selling them, he (the character) only thought it was "just a suit of armor" and had no reason to suspect anything was amiss. In addition, the player obviously didn't know they were different for whatever reason.

It's very reasonable that the ranger (the character) had no idea there was anything unusual to consider in the circumstances described, nor would it be the DM's responsibility to say anything. Again, I might have allowed an additional check or two, but the DC would be different knowing that the ranger was never involved in any table discussions regarding the armor, and quite likely viewed the armor as just an "extra thing we don't need." Even the "appraisal" which I read as more of a simple question since there is no indication that he is/intends to sit down examining the armor piece by piece to determine a rough value. This is one place where the DM could have said (after the check), that generally speaking a suit of adamantine armour would be worth "x", but not being an expert, armorer, or armor merchant, you'd have to spend some time to really go over the armor to determine a more precise value. Do you want to examine it more closely?

Remember, in the scenario provided, the ranger never actually looked at the armor other than as a set tied up in a bundle.

My players have a character whose background is a merchant, and specifically took expertise in Investigation so he can appraise items. If that character asked the same question, I would have given a more detailed answer, including noting the reduction in price because the gauntlets don't match, but the price could be higher if the gauntlets or ring are magical. But that isn't the case here as far as I know.

...

I also asked my group last night what they thought of the situation. The initial reaction, when I asked if they thought the DM was wrong? Mild confusion. "Wrong about what?," they asked. So as I predicted, even with further discussion, there was not even a slight consideration that the DM had done anything wrong at all. Not even the new guy who I met for the first time last night. He is a friend of a couple of the other players and they thought he would enjoy our campaign. In fact, they were suprised that anybody thought there was a problem with the scenario, and even more so that the debate continued for 45+ pages.

Like so many aspects of this game, this type of thing is very table specific. Taking advantage of situations like this every once in a while is a tool the DM can use, provided that the players don't have an issue with it. The other thing that I see over and over again in discussions like this is that the importance of this one scenario takes on much greater importance in the void of a discussion than it does as a point in an ongoing campaign. The selling of the armor and the aftermath comprises a minute percentage of game time played. In the course of a game - played hours at a time, for weeks, months, or even years - there will be things that happen that the players/characters don't like. If it's a big enough deal to the players, it should be addressed. Otherwise it's just part of the game, and part of life.

YMMV. What's of dire importance to one player may not even register for the others. That doesn't make it invalid. If a problem or disagreement arises it must be addressed. That doesn't mean the player(s) or the DM will get their way, of course. It might end up favoring one side of the debate or another, or some compromise or other solution might be found.

In our case, if there's something that's enough of a big deal, a single player could conceivably carry veto power. But it's the entire table that will also decide if a certain situation warrants that, or the other extreme of whether perhaps playing with that particular player is the bigger issue. Usually it's some place in the middle. In this case the question would be whether addressing primarily one player's repeated objections when something doesn't go their way, and continued use of a phone during play, is worth more than sharing the game with a good friend. So far, they seem to have decided that the friendship and time spent together is more important than enforcing a No Phone rule, but not enough to change or retcon results when he complains. The reactions of the other players, to the scenario and the fallout, really answers the question originally posed for his table.

The debate has many perspectives and opinions, and it's really only each of us, and each our our tables, to determine whether the DM in this case was right or wrong for the same reason.

Ilbranteloth

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Exactly. The job of the DM is to help the players tell a fun and (hopefully at least every once in a while) exciting story. If they have strayed from this, especially as a way to get back at a player at the expense of the other players, then they have fundamentally failed.
It took me a while to realize this, but once you wise up and realize that the DM's job is absolutely *not* to "Be the boss" then your game will be far better for it. Your job as DM is to submit to the players wants without allowing any one character to monopolize the story, adapt to the character actions driving the story, and keep your responses within the boundaries of the agreed upon ruleset and in the best interest of the player's story.

First, the DM specifically said he did not do this in retaliation to a player. So that's not a factor here.

Otherwise I agree overall with your statement, except to point out that in the course of a game, there may be situations or incidents that one or more of the players don't like. The real question as to whether the DM has succeeded or not cannot be measured against a single incident/situation/scenario. Some times it also can't be measured immediately after the fact. In most cases the measurement is at a macro level. For example, was this session fun? Is this campaign fun? Is playing with this DM fun.

The boundaries of the agreed upon ruleset, particularly in a ruleset as open-ended as D&D, is an evolving thing at any table. There are too many possibilities to be able to cover everything from the outset, so a scenario like this is also often a learning experience about that agreed upon ruleset.

A RAW example of something equally (if not more) contentious is the idea of the DM fudging. It is explicitly called out as an acceptable tool for the DM, but not everybody agrees with that. It's important for the table to know whether or not the table agrees with a rule like this, although it may not come up for discussion until a situation triggers it.

In this case, there are a number of factors at play that show a bit of their agreed upon ruleset. What's important here is that the DM's stated goals aren't entirely reflected in his or the players actions. Two key ones are:

1) Paying attention. While the DM expresses a wish for them to pay closer attention, and that at least one of the players is a larger offender than the others, he (and the table) have decided (as evidenced in their actions) that it's OK to use your phone at the table for non game related purposes.

2) Table talk. They are OK with non game related conversation, at least when the player's characters aren't immediately involved in the situation. So the Monk and Barbarian having a side conversation is fine while the ranger is busy selling things (and the sorcerer is on his phone).

This also covers questions about whether players can participate even when their character's aren't present. Is it OK for the ranger to listen (and their character to know) what is being told to the barbarian and monk when he's not present? It would appear the DM thinks it's OK, but the players seem to be more interested in other conversations/phones than taking advantage of that. There isn't any evidence as to whether it's OK for the players not present at the smith can help the player who is. Again, it appears that they are more interested in their side conversation at that time.

The disconnect is whether the DM is responsible for reminding/telling the PCs important information they may have missed when they aren't paying attention, or when they seem to have forgotten something that the DM thinks they might consider important. This isn't necessarily a one-size-fits-all solution. Selling a suit of armor vs. jumping into a flaming tree (from an earlier example) may have different thresholds, for many reasons.

I, and my players, feel that if the players are not paying attention, and have missed/forgotten information, that's their problem. If one missed information because they were in the bathroom, I remind the other players to fill them in. Depending on the circumstance I might jump in to fill in any blanks I feel they missed that should be known. I would have done this when they originally found the armor. That is, if the ranger had been in the bathroom, and they failed to tell him about the gauntlets, I might prompt them, or I might just give the description again. I would not extend the same courtesy when they are selling the armor. They've had plenty of time to ask questions, remind each other (by holding conversations about what's going on in the game), etc.

This is not a punitive decision. I'm not punishing them for their behavior. But I'm not rewarding it either. They don't get an extra check to overcome their lack of participation. If I felt it should be obvious that the ranger would see the gauntlets as something unique based on all of the events leading up to the interaction, I would provide some type of check(s) and go with, and whatever result, well, resulted. The DM in this case did this. Whether we think he provided enough checks, the right kind of checks, or he should have been more descriptive is one debate. Whether the DM should take advantage of this situation is another.

One of the results of this particular interest could be a (apparently long-needed) discussion about proper gaming etiquette. The gauntlet (literally and figuratively) has been thrown down. If you don't pay attention to the details, you might miss something. On the other hand, if you're paying attention and are engaged in the game, I won't penalize you for forgetting a detail every once in a while. If there's something important, though, I'd recommend you write it down, talk about it, describe your actions in more detail, or otherwise make it clear what your intentions are.

After the discussion, I'd probably let the table decide whether or not the sale should stand for this particular situation, with the fair warning that if a similar situation occurred in the future, the results might be different.

The DM has far more to keep track of then the players. If they are actually paying attention, the idea of remembering that the suit of armor potentially has some special properties isn't excessively burdensome. If it's easier for them to remember using a tablet, phone, or writing it down, then they should do that. But the players have a responsibility to keep track of what's important to them. I don't think losing a potential magic item is that big a loss. The death of a character would probably be different.

--

If there's anything wrong with how the DM handled it, it would be when the party returned to the blacksmith to confront him. There doesn't seem to be any attempt to engage the rules for this particular interaction. While I lean heavily on the role-playing, I use that to modify the DC for any skill checks. There should have been some Persuasion or Intimidation checks here at the very least. The chance may have been slim to convince the smith to give the items back, but it should have been there.

Ilbranteloth

 

[Maxperson]

Then it was a gotcha as the players had no chance to interact with the scene and avoid selling things they didn't intend to sell.

Something the players don't know and don't figure out does not automatically become a gotcha if it affects them. Sorry. It just doesn't work like that. A gotcha has to be something impossible for them to figure out and is then sprung on them anyway.