Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 6844288" data-attributes="member: 6778044">It seems you are assuming that the players aren't adult enough to tell the DM (one of their best friends) the truth. While there very well may be people who, for various reasons, opt not to tell the DM what they really feel, the fact is that if they aren't willing to tell him that he can't be expected to know it, or act upon it.When I read the OP, which I take at face value, I get the sense that the players are largely OK with what happened, and understand it, with the exception of one player. It's difficult to have a meaningful conversation if some of us think that the original poster is lying. That totally changes the scenario we're debating.If the players don't feel comfortable letting their DM know when they've done something they don't like, there's an entirely different problem at play, and makes this discussion (at least for that group) largely moot.I understand both sides of the debate, and while I don't always agree with all of the reasoning that has been presented (on either side), I totally agree that both positions are equally valid. I'm sure there are some here who disagree with that assessment and I'm fine with that.What really matters in a situation like this is what the people at the table think. While we have a general sense of how they feel, we don't know what their general table rules are. If there's a disagreement at our table, we'll discuss it briefly, make a decision and move on. We can always revisit it later. The decision is usually by simple majority if a vote is necessary at all.In this case, if I were a player, and the DM pointed out that:#1) it was presented as a set#2) we said we'd bundle it together as a set#3) we've always considered a "suit of armor" meaning plate, aka full plate, includes gauntlets, helmet, etc. As it states in the rules, unless otherwise specified. That is, if the players don't want to sell the gauntlets with the suit, they would have to say so. Just like the DM would have to tell them if the suit they were purchasing was lacking gauntlets. (I should note that gauntlets and helmets actually have benefits in our house rules, so they are generally more important than they would be RAW)#4) we tried to remove the ring and found it would not easily be removed#5) we never mentioned, at any point, that we were separating the gauntlets (and thus the ring) from the suit of armor, nor making further attempts to remove the ring from the armor#6) we never specified to sell the armor without the gauntlets, which have already been acknowledged as a part of a "suit of armor"#7) based on #1-7, that while the DM may have taken advantage of the situation, it was a reasonable assumption on the DM's part, and thus the scenario and results are reasonableAs such, we'd let it go. We'd be more careful about how we went about things perhaps, I'm sure that would include being excessively specific in a joking manner for a while, but the bottom line is that we wouldn't really get hung up on it.Similar situations have occurred a number of times where a player has asked something along the lines of "I forgot to tell you that I did 'x', can we assume I remembered to do it?" When that has occurred, it's usually the players who chime in and ask questions and it often ends in the player deciding that, no, they didn't do it.This has included forgetting to pick up treasure, and occasionally something important enough that they would go back for it. Sometimes we just decide that they would logically have done that, and we don't have to worry about declaring everything we do. For example, we've made the assumption up front that as long as there is a reasonable amount of time to recover from a combat that archers are collecting any unbroken arrows they can. So at my table, I don't think he did anything wrong. Other tables will have other opinions simply because there are different people involved. That's OK.  Ilbranteloth</blockquote>

Verification