Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 6844471" data-attributes="member: 6778044">I don't agree with that, though. He asked if "he can make a int check to learn how much such an armor would go for"Read more: <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?478623-Was-I-in-the-wrong/page14#ixzz42VFVuYlD" target="_blank">http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?478623-Was-I-in-the-wrong/page14#ixzz42VFVuYlD</a>I think that can be read a number of different ways as well. Again, we're limited by the wording presented in the post instead of actually being there.But if somebody is just asking "how much such a suit of armor would sell for" doesn't necessarily mean that they are required to look directly at the armor. Such a question can be asked and answered even if the item is not there. A friend could simply tell me that he saw a particular car for sale, and I could ask the same thing - meaning "based on my (your) experience, how much would such a car sell for?" In fact, because he made a check that succeeded so well, I might argue that it implied that he knew what the general value of a suit of adamantine armor was without even thinking about it, much less having to examine it closely.Again, to me there isn't really enough actual information (for me anyway) to judge whether in this specific instance the DM made a mistake or not. It's a summary, and we'll never know exactly what the player said, what the tone, body language was, etc. But the debate is still quite valid, as a question as to whether this type of scenario, as described, is OK or not. And that's entirely dependent upon the players involved.It's also important to understand that I'm not saying that the DM didn't deceive the player. That was partially the point of the encounter, even if it didn't start that way. Because the DM realized that the player did not remember/realize that they had never separated the gauntlets from the suit of armor, he assumed that the gauntlets were present. Rightfully in my opinion, based on the game definition of "suit of armor" combined with what the players said/did before the encounter. I view the encounter as being one that simulates, in part, those times where we do do something absentminded and make a mistake, as well as one where the NPC is attempting to deceive the character. Which is a difficult thing to simulate in a game precisely because if the DM mentioned the gauntlets during the encounter, he would have alerted the player to the fact that they might be making a mistake. While many of you would argue that the DM is required to do so, I disagree. It's an interesting encounter, and while I might have adjudicated it slightly differently mechanically, I don't see any fault in the DM either. More importantly, based on the description that the players are OK with it, I don't see any issue with it for this DM.Without input from the players specifically, we really can't know if they simply forgot vs. a disconnect between what the DM described as the situation and the player's understanding. It's probably a combination of both. That doesn't mean in either case, however, that the scenario is unreasonable, as I, and others, have pointed out situations where we have made errors of memory and recognizing, realizing what's in front of our face.This is all within the spirit that the game (for us) is a simulation of the lives of the characters in a "real" world. Life is full of successes and failures, and those shape the lives of the characters. The DM will play tricks on the PCs from time-to-time, whether it be a trap, invisible or hidden creatures, ambushes, etc., and situations like this. It's up to the individual group to determine what tricks the DM is allowed to consider part of their set of tools, and that's why if the players really felt this was unfair, then I'd change it. Such circumstances are determined at my table largely by the players. We've had plenty of circumstances where they will find something, then forget to actually pick something up and take it with them. It usually presents itself when a player says "I want to use the wand that was being held by the statue." "Did somebody pick it up, I don't recall." "Umm, well, I don't think so, but I would have." Followed either by, "darn it" or a brief discussion by the players. If the table consensus is that they should have it, so be it. Most of the time they don't. If they were specifically looking for the wand, then I'd probably assume they did. But this suit of armor was an incidental treasure, and that's it. In which case I'd assume that if they didn't tell me they picked it up, they didn't. Or, if they don't tell me they try to sell the armor without the gauntlets. It's not a question of what they would have done, but what they did.More importantly, I'm sure that they would agree. I'll report back after Saturday's session if they feel differently.Part of that perspective is that we don't feel the job of the DM is to prevent them from making little or big mistakes. The players are responsible for the actions of their characters. If those actions are compromised because they aren't paying attention, that's largely their issue. They will let me know if it's because of a misunderstanding due to poor communication on my part. And that's when we might change it. But it's a table consensus, and in the case of their table it sounds like the consensus was to go with it. That doesn't mean everybody will agree, but, at least at our table, we agree that we'll go with the majority, even if we personally disagree. If we really feel strongly about it, we take that into account as well. That usually presents itself as "well, if Dave really feels that strongly, then I can't really say it's OK either."Ilbranteloth</blockquote>

Verification