Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Pandaemoni" data-source="post: 6844304" data-attributes="member: 6689321">There is clearly a semantic element to the outrage or lack thereof.&nbsp; I know that if my character buys a &quot;set of plate armor&quot; I expect that to include gauntlets.&nbsp; If my DM later tells me that I lack gauntlets because I bought that &quot;set&quot; I never separately specified that I also wanted gauntlets, then I would feel the DM was purposefully trying to screw with me unfairly.&nbsp; That said, when the blacksmith said &quot;set&quot; he (very understandably) meant it to include the gauntlets.&nbsp; When the ranger heard &quot;set&quot; he may not have thought it included a pair of gauntlets (or he may have not thought about what a &quot;set&quot; includes one way or another until later on).I&nbsp; have seen that exact sort of problem of differing semantics happen all the time in real life.&nbsp; It's striking how often two sides come away with ten page &quot;term sheet&quot; thinking they basically have agreed to a deal and then when the actual contract is written it takes months of fighting over terms because they only thought they agreed on them, but actually both sides understood the same words materially differently. Because in most contexts I think most players understand a &quot;set&quot; of plate armor to mean a complete set including all the individual pieces in a standard suit plate armor, which would include gauntlets, I find it hard to say that the blacksmith's use of the word &quot;set&quot; was in any way bizarre in this case.&nbsp; If the PC had though about the language the PC *might* have thought that word &quot;set&quot; means&nbsp; &quot;this particular set of plate armor I want to sell, which does not include gauntlets.&quot;I have seen real world cases that turned on just that kind of issue, where some judges would have said the blacksmith wins, and some would have said the ranger wins.&nbsp; The real difficulty here is that I am sure he DM imagined that the ranger was SHOWING the blacksmith a full set, gauntlets included, whereas I imagine that the PC though he was showing an incomplete set, without any gauntlets.&nbsp; That's an inherent issue with a theater of the mind game, where different people can imagine the same situation differently.&nbsp; I have a strong suspicion that IRL a judge would say that if the gauntlets were displayed when the deal was struck, the blacksmith wins and the gauntlets were legally sold to him, whereas if no gauntlets were on display when the deal was struck the ranger wins and the gauntlets belong to the party.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Pandaemoni, post: 6844304, member: 6689321"] There is clearly a semantic element to the outrage or lack thereof. I know that if my character buys a "set of plate armor" I expect that to include gauntlets. If my DM later tells me that I lack gauntlets because I bought that "set" I never separately specified that I [U]also[/U] wanted gauntlets, then I would feel the DM was purposefully trying to screw with me unfairly. That said, when the blacksmith said "set" he (very understandably) meant it to include the gauntlets. When the ranger heard "set" he may not have thought it included a pair of gauntlets (or he may have not thought about what a "set" includes one way or another until later on). I have seen that exact sort of problem of differing semantics happen all the time in real life. It's striking how often two sides come away with ten page "term sheet" thinking they basically have agreed to a deal and then when the actual contract is written it takes months of fighting over terms because they [U]only thought[/U] they agreed on them, but actually both sides understood the same words materially differently. Because in most contexts I think most players understand a "set" of plate armor to mean a complete set including all the individual pieces in a standard suit plate armor, which would include gauntlets, I find it hard to say that the blacksmith's use of the word "set" was in any way bizarre in this case. If the PC had though about the language the PC *might* have thought that word "set" means "this particular set of plate armor I want to sell, which does not include gauntlets." I have seen real world cases that turned on just that kind of issue, where some judges would have said the blacksmith wins, and some would have said the ranger wins. The real difficulty here is that I am sure he DM imagined that the ranger was SHOWING the blacksmith a full set, gauntlets included, whereas I imagine that the PC though he was showing an incomplete set, without any gauntlets. That's an inherent issue with a theater of the mind game, where different people can imagine the same situation differently. I have a strong suspicion that IRL a judge would say that if the gauntlets were displayed when the deal was struck, the blacksmith wins and the gauntlets were legally sold to him, whereas if no gauntlets were on display when the deal was struck the ranger wins and the gauntlets belong to the party. [/QUOTE]

Verification