Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aura" data-source="post: 6843208" data-attributes="member: 6747658">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 armorFor 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 @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=6778044" target="_blank">Ilbranteloth</a> - 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.</blockquote>

Verification