D&D 5E Was I in the wrong?

[TheLoneRanger1979]

Because the best I can tell from the description, the barbarian handed the ranger a bundle of armor, which he simply took with him. He didn't examine it, or anything of that nature. He saw the bundle of armor, of course, but that doesn't mean he noticed the ring or that the gauntlets were different. Once the armor was tied up, whether the gauntlets were visible or not is unknown. The blacksmith, on the other hand, did examine it. I can think of all sorts of possibilities for him to prevent the ranger from seeing it at that point.....

<insert preferred deity here> guys! If this doesn't beg for a gotcha moment i don't know what does )
I understand there are different tables that handle interactions in different ways, but i would certainly hate to play one in which i would have to in character explain every minute detail and every action word for word to every fellow party member that was away from the party but on the table when i did or did not do something. It would just feel so...... tiresome..... but that's just me

 

[Otterscrubber]

I can understand why the players are upset. But in this case I think they are upset as much at themselves as you, because frankly it was inattentiveness on their part that cost them. When folks make a mistake and it is their fault, I find this is when people get really upset.

IMHO, I don't think you did anything wrong. Players who want to not pay attention when dealing with awesome loot drops get what they deserve in my opinion. And awesome loot brings with it people wanting to get that loot away from them, in this case in the form a cagey blacksmith who knows how to look out for his own interests. He is not evil or even underhanded here. He just used the situation to his advantage to make a deal that was in his best interest, as I would expect of an NPC living in hard times. I would think it would be on the players to know what they are dealing with and take their hard earned loot seriously.

Is it a bit hard nosed? Meh, not really if you ask me.

As far as the player who is distracted by his phone, I would find out if it's bothering anyone else at the gaming table and if so politely ask him to refrain from using it while you are gaming. Simple courtesy. If that doesn't happen then they could at least extend the courtesy of not biting your head off if their distraction causes them to get screwed in some way. Part of the game is NPC interactions and I think you making the blacksmith take them to task is a solid bit of DM'ing on your part and should be encouraged, not discouraged. You didn't punish them, you gave them a social encounter. Which they failed. But it might lead to another social encounter. Sure they could steal it back, but that raises questions if they are a good/neutral group and may even cause more social issues if they get caught and are now wanted criminals. But they might also get to know the blacksmith better and find out if he values something other than gold that they can trade for. Perhaps his neice was captured by orcs and needs rescuing. Or some other leverage that will create some gaming goodness.

I get why they are upset, they got hosed. But they got prevent-ably hosed. The fact they could have prevented it and didn't is what's really upsetting them. Everyone just needs to take a deep breath and think it through a bit.

 

[FrogReaver]

Totally disagree. Not seen any strong evidence of absent mindedness. absent mindedness = player saying I'll sell the gauntlets and doing so not realizing they are magical. Absent mindedness = selling a pouch after placing a magical ring in the pouch. I don't know how anyone comes away from the scenario thinking either of those things happened.

I can understand why the players are upset. But in this case I think they are upset as much at themselves as you, because frankly it was inattentiveness on their part that cost them. When folks make a mistake and it is their fault, I find this is when people get really upset.

IMHO, I don't think you did anything wrong. Players who want to not pay attention when dealing with awesome loot drops get what they deserve in my opinion. And awesome loot brings with it people wanting to get that loot away from them, in this case in the form a cagey blacksmith who knows how to look out for his own interests. He is not evil or even underhanded here. He just used the situation to his advantage to make a deal that was in his best interest, as I would expect of an NPC living in hard times. I would think it would be on the players to know what they are dealing with and take their hard earned loot seriously.

Is it a bit hard nosed? Meh, not really if you ask me.

As far as the player who is distracted by his phone, I would find out if it's bothering anyone else at the gaming table and if so politely ask him to refrain from using it while you are gaming. Simple courtesy. If that doesn't happen then they could at least extend the courtesy of not biting your head off if their distraction causes them to get screwed in some way. Part of the game is NPC interactions and I think you making the blacksmith take them to task is a solid bit of DM'ing on your part and should be encouraged, not discouraged. You didn't punish them, you gave them a social encounter. Which they failed. But it might lead to another social encounter. Sure they could steal it back, but that raises questions if they are a good/neutral group and may even cause more social issues if they get caught and are now wanted criminals. But they might also get to know the blacksmith better and find out if he values something other than gold that they can trade for. Perhaps his neice was captured by orcs and needs rescuing. Or some other leverage that will create some gaming goodness.

I get why they are upset, they got hosed. But they got prevent-ably hosed. The fact they could have prevented it and didn't is what's really upsetting them. Everyone just needs to take a deep breath and think it through a bit.

 

[hbarsquared]

Have not read the past 45 pages.

Read page 48.

Amazed that the thread is still on-topic.

Carry on.

 

[Lanliss]

Totally disagree. Not seen any strong evidence of absent mindedness. absent mindedness = player saying I'll sell the gauntlets and doing so not realizing they are magical. Absent mindedness = selling a pouch after placing a magical ring in the pouch. I don't know how anyone comes away from the scenario thinking either of those things happened.

Personally, I would have stored the gauntlets separate from the armor, based on them being different. At the least, I would have specifically pulled the gauntlets out of the bundle before handing it over to the blacksmith. True, what happened later makes it obvious that the Player did not intend to sell the gauntlets, but at the time of selling, I think the DM did fine. I also consider a retcon to be an insult, so that would be a no go for me, thus resulting in needing a different way to get the items back. Of course, this is all just me, and I am not in OPs group.

 

[FrogReaver]

But why does it really matter if the items are stored together? As long as the player declares which item he is selling.

Personally, I would have stored the gauntlets separate from the armor, based on them being different. At the least, I would have specifically pulled the gauntlets out of the bundle before handing it over to the blacksmith. True, what happened later makes it obvious that the Player did not intend to sell the gauntlets, but at the time of selling, I think the DM did fine. I also consider a retcon to be an insult, so that would be a no go for me, thus resulting in needing a different way to get the items back. Of course, this is all just me, and I am not in OPs group.

 

[Lanliss]

But why does it really matter if the items are stored together? As long as the player declares which item he is selling.

Others have already described how the gauntlets are included with an armor set. They did not separate the different looking gauntlets from the set, so saying "I sell the armor" would include the gauntlets, unless the player specified everything except the gauntlets, which would not be a difficult thing to do if it was marked in their book as something like

-Armor set (gauntlets don't match, are possibly magic)

 

[Maxperson]

Totally disagree. Not seen any strong evidence of absent mindedness. absent mindedness = player saying I'll sell the gauntlets and doing so not realizing they are magical. Absent mindedness = selling a pouch after placing a magical ring in the pouch. I don't know how anyone comes away from the scenario thinking either of those things happened.

Maybe because they knew it was a set and intentionally bundled them as a set, then the DM REMINDED THEM of the ring and gauntlets being part of the set at a later time. Later on they sold the set that they knew prior to, and were reminded at least once prior to, contained the ring and gauntlets. If that isn't absent minded, absent minded doesn't exist.

The players screwed up not once, but twice and they lost out. That's on them.

 

[Maxperson]

But why does it really matter if the items are stored together? As long as the player declares which item he is selling.

He declared he was selling the armor, which included the gauntlet and the ring. That's what set means. So the declaration to sell the armor was a declaration to sell all three.

 

[pemerton]

Players who want to not pay attention when dealing with awesome loot drops get what they deserve in my opinion. And awesome loot brings with it people wanting to get that loot away from them

<snip>

Sure they could steal it back, but that raises questions if they are a good/neutral group and may even cause more social issues if they get caught and are now wanted criminals. But they might also get to know the blacksmith better and find out if he values something other than gold that they can trade for. Perhaps his neice was captured by orcs and needs rescuing. Or some other leverage that will create some gaming goodness.

As I asked upthread - is there some reason to think that the campaign would otherwise have come to an end for lack of gaming goodness?

If not, how is it relevant that the gaming goodness might now incorporate this particular event? If the threshold for good GMing is that the fiction that results can be incorporated into subsequent ingame situations, that's not a very high threshold.

You didn't punish them, you gave them a social encounter. Which they failed.

He declared he was selling the armor, which included the gauntlet and the ring.

They did not separate the different looking gauntlets from the set, so saying "I sell the armor" would include the gauntlets, unless the player specified everything except the gauntlets

If, by the armour, the player means the armour excluding the gauntlets and ring, why is the player bound by the interpretation that was not intended?

I don't see that the player failed a social encounter at all. The player didn't mishandle negotiations with the blacksmith. The player didn't forget that the gauntlets and ring were valuable. The "challenge" in this situation was entirely metagame: the player did not use the GM's preferred canonical phrase for referring to the armour excluding the gauntlets and ring, and as a result got hosed for it.

That is why some posters think it was a "gotcha". Others might disagree, because they might think that this sort of "precision wording" play is fair game. But whether or not it's fair game, it has nothing to do with engaging the fiction of the social encounter, let alone doing so well or poorly!

(As an exception: some posters seem to think that the ranger PC plonked down a sack of stuff and didn't remove the gauntlets or ring. In that case there is something occurring in the fiction that corresponds to the "precision wording" requirement that has been imposed. But this is what makes me ask whether or not the NPC purchaser had a ring of X-ray vision. If not, how did he see inside the sack without the ranger also getting to see?)