Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lejaun" data-source="post: 6844688" data-attributes="member: 6814580">Absolutely, they should have had a chance before selling the armor......if it even got that far.The players going to the magic shop and inquiring into getting information on the gauntlet and ring, without any prompting or guidance from the DM, indicates that they had no intention of selling the gauntlet and ring.  They would have never asked that question and this topic would have never come up if they had intended to sell them. In real world legal terms, a contract is required to have a meeting of the minds, aka both parties must have the same understanding of what the actual deal is.  That never took place in this incident.Why did this incident happen?  Because the players and DM are in a world in which they can't actually physically touch, handle and see what is being sold.  The meaning of words that the DM was telling them was different than what the player thought the DM meant.  In a world where words are the only thing you have to go on, it is crucial that both parties know exactly what the other is trying to describe.Perhaps I play differently, but it doesn't seem like it would be much fun to play in a game where I have to scrutinize every single world that the DM says and to methodically say every single step of every single thing that I do.A previous post describing setting a tree on fire is a perfect example of this.  (Player sets a tree on fire.  Later player says he climbs a tree and the DM says, "Ah ha! You take fire damage!")  The player obviously wouldn't climb a tree on fire.  If all the trees are on fire, it is the DM's job to say something like "You look for a tree to climb, but all of the ones nearby are on fire.  Do you want to climb one of them?"  The player is able to clearly recognize what the deal is (I can climb a tree, but if I do it will be in a tree on fire).  If the DM says "You take fire damage" the player is not going to be mad, because he was properly described the scene and should know what would happen.This applies very well to this incident.  The DM straight up did a poor job of describing the situation and deal accurately.  The proper way would have been for the DM/Blacksmith to say something like: "The blacksmith looks over the suit of armor.  He examines the helm, breastplate, greaves, vambraces and the gauntlet with the ring stuck on one finger.  He then turns to you and says, "This armor is beat up, but there is enough value to it that I am interested.  I will give you 1,000 gold for all of the armor pieces that you have shown me here."The player clearly knows what is being sold because the DM has described it accurately.  If the player sells the armor, he is more to blame than the blacksmith because what was being sold was described accurately.  There isn't room for confusion.  The DM in this situation failed to do that completely.  He should have never put the players in this kind of situation because his storytelling should be of a level that leaves no room for this type of confusion.</blockquote>

Verification