Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pandaemoni" data-source="post: 6844372" data-attributes="member: 6689321">It is true that the each player would have preferred not to sell the full set of armor.  The ranger agreed to a deal to sell the "set."  It doesn't really matter, I think, what the other players intended at that moment.  Those characters were not present for the sale.  The irrelevance (to me, that is) is only that the general intent of the players helps to inform what the ranger's intent might have been. From there, I accept that the transfer probably didn't intend to sell a full set of armor, but only part of a set.  That is not the end of the matter though.  First, an anecdote:  I didn't intend to leave my passport on a subway in London when I was 17 years old, but it happened.  I was inattentive.  I set it down on the seat next to me while I fiddled with some packages and got distracted.  I didn't notice it when I got up--too rushed or too overtired, I guess.  It happens, despite what we intend, in real life and so it can also happen in game.  It would have been nice if whoever found it had attempted to return it, but it would have been a shock if God had chimed in to warn me.  Is God a bad DM?  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />  Kidding.The big difference here is that both the DM and player likely had different mental images of the sale.  In the DM's imagination, the players never physically separated the be-ringed gauntlets from the rest of the armor and so when the armor was hauled out for sale by the ranger, the DM assumed they were still with the other pieces of the set.  OTOH, the ranger never wanted to sell the gauntlets and probably imagined he was selling an incomplete set of armor.I am not certain, and don't believe, that this is a case where the DM realized that the player had a different understanding of what the words "set of armor" meant.  I believe he thought the ranger was being careless because the blacksmith was buying "the [full] set" and that the ranger was being foolishly inattentive in not specifying that the sale would not include the (in the DM's mind, clearly present) magic gauntlets and related ring.  In other words, I think the DM imagined it was in a sense "obvious" the gauntlets were present, and it didn't occur to the DM that the ranger imagined the Gauntlets were never even shown to the blacksmith.The ranger simultaneously made the same mistake about the DM's imaginings.  He likely assumed the gauntlets were still in a bag and that "the [partial] set" of armor was all that he and the blacksmith were looking at when the price was set.  From his perspective, it might have seemed odd that the blacksmith was deducting from the sale price for wear and tear, but that he never asked for a deduction based on the set being incomplete.  If that had occurred to the player, then I bet the player would have not mentioned it, much as the DM had the blacksmith hide his intent to include the ring in the deal the one price for entire set.This is why I don't see the DM's intent as malicious.  In his mind, the scene looked like this: The ranger left his passport on the subway and didn't notice it when he got up to exit the train.  In the ranger's mind, he left his passport safely at the hotel with the party, and so he couldn't have possibly have left it the train.  Neither thought to specify the whereabouts of the passport in advance and both had contradictory images of the scene in mind as it unfolded.  That kind of contradiction happens all the time in theater of the mind games (and it's why battlemats and miniatures made a resurgence in 3e, in my opinion) and it is very difficult to "guess" at whether or not you and any other player are picturing the scene the same way.The DM might have called for a check to see if the ranger did in fact notice the (from the DM's perspective) error, but I don't think we should throw too much shade over the fact that the DM did not.  Obviously many here disagree (to the point of some wanting the DM to be forced to step down as a punishment, stating that apologies should be required, and wanting assurances that this will never happen again, all based on the--I believe incorrect--assumption that the DM was being intentionally malicious to punish his players for their out of game conduct).  But lighten up, "never againers"!  Either way this is not a big deal.  So far as we know people here are angrier about this than the players involved.  Vitriol on either side won't change minds, won't change future play styles, and won't accomplish anything but making us all feel more justified in our respective indignations.And that is probably why we do it.  We enjoy the high of not only feeling that we are "right" but are righteous in our fury.  Since the fury accomplishes absolutely nothing else, I hope there is at least that much of a benefit.  The internet as a tool for rational discourse is overrated, but as an engine of righteous indignation, it has truly become transcendent.  One might be forgiven for passionate politics (although, even there, I think the internet has taken us into a new and terrifying age of often pointless rage), but now it extents into wrath over the belief that someone playing a game "wrong" or over the belief that people who think he is playing the game "wrong" are "wrong."  That's something to ponder.</blockquote>

Verification