D&D 5E Was I in the wrong?

[Yardiff]

Better than having no reason at all as to why they couldn't see them.

So your saying that because they were in the same room is enough reason while I'm saying its not. You said, I said... that's pretty much what it comes down to.

Now Ilbranteloth has given a very good explanation about why he feels that the ranger NOT being able to see the items in question. What again was your reason that the ranger COULD see the items? They were in the same room?

 

[Yardiff]

Anyone that thinks the items were not in plain view. Why was such details not provided to the player who was engaging in the scene?

As far as you know these details were provided and the OPs didnt feel it necessary to go into in-depth detail for the post. Since no one on this thread except the OP was even there during this scene in question, the only conclusions we can reach are based off of what info the OP felt like giving and our own bias and experience.

 

[pemerton]

That sounds like they weren't to me. Kind of like "Meanwhile back at the ranch."

<snip>


By my reading of the posts, the ranger did not know about the gauntlets or ring.

The posts say that, after the second melee, the unconscious characters (who included the ranger) were woken up and then the barbarian bundled up the armour etc. Nothing indicates that the ranger was not on the scene immediately after having been woken up.

 

[Maxperson]

what people here have said is that if a fanciful explanation is needed for why the player can't see the items then it should have been mentioned in the scene.

Here in this thread, sure. That comment was not limited to this thread, though. Sorry for being unclear.

 

[Maxperson]

The posts say that, after the second melee, the unconscious characters (who included the ranger) were woken up and then the barbarian bundled up the armour etc. Nothing indicates that the ranger was not on the scene immediately after having been woken up.

To be fair, nothing indicates Galactus wasn't on the scene, either. You can't go by what is not said, but only by what is said. Woken up does not mean that the ranger was there. Whether he was or not is an unknown.

 

[pemerton]

To be fair, nothing indicates Galactus wasn't on the scene, either. You can't go by what is not said, but only by what is said. Woken up does not mean that the ranger was there. Whether he was or not is an unknown.

The GM set out to give a fairly full description of events. In the course of this, there is mention of the ranger waking up, then of the barbarian bundling the armour. Nothing is said about the ranger leaving the scene. So why would one assume that he did?

 

[Sunseeker]

To be fair, nothing indicates Galactus wasn't on the scene, either. You can't go by what is not said, but only by what is said. Woken up does not mean that the ranger was there. Whether he was or not is an unknown.

I'm fairly certain a planet-sized humanoid bent on devouring all sentient life wouldn't go unnoticed from orbit....much less if he was in the room.

But you are both operating on what wasn't said instead of what was said. The OP indicated that the ranger was awake and in the same area as the barbarian who was bundling up the armor. It neither says the ranger SAW the barbarian do this nor that the ranger DIDNT see the barbarian do this.

You can't make the argument that because the OP didn't affirmatively mention the ranger seeing the barbarian bundle the armor that the ranger must not have seen it; and then turn around and call someone out for claiming that because the OP didn't mention the ranger NOT seeing the barbarian bundle the armor that the ranger must have seen it.

You guys are making the exact same argument "The DM didn't say X, therefore Y must be true." based on the same evidence, just one of you is in the affirmative and the other is in the negative.

 

[Maxperson]

The GM set out to give a fairly full description of events. In the course of this, there is mention of the ranger waking up, then of the barbarian bundling the armour. Nothing is said about the ranger leaving the scene. So why would one assume that he did?

He didn't have to leave the scene. A scene is not some 8x8 square. Awake and nearby is not the same as being present for the bundling. We have no knowledge of whether he did or did not see the stuff bundled.

 

[pemerton]

Awake and nearby is not the same as being present for the bundling. We have no knowledge of whether he did or did not see the stuff bundled.

We don't have knowledge, no. We can conjecture.

Did the player of the ranger know whether or not the ranger saw the stuff being bundled?
[MENTION=93444]shidaku[/MENTION] - you are right that I am conjecturing. My conjecture is based on the fairly clear picture I feel that I have of the GMing approach and general approach to play that comes out of the OP and follow-up post.

 

[Maxperson]

We don't have knowledge, no. We can conjecture.

Hence Galactus. Conjecture is just a fancy name for assumption. Assumptions are very often wrong.

Did the player of the ranger know whether or not the ranger saw the stuff being bundled?

That would depend on whether the player was paying attention or not. We do know that the DM reminded the players that the stuff was bundled, so it's unlikely that the player did not know, but he might not know if his PC knew.