Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 6847106" data-attributes="member: 6778044">Of course they had a chance to interact with the scene. More importantly, they had plenty of opportunity between discovering the armor and selling it to mention that they were considering them separately. I'm not disagreeing that the DM could have done better. Meaning they could have allowed other checks, probably some passive ones, without coming right out an asking about the gauntlets or the ring.More importantly, as I re-read the expanded post:Emphasis mine in the above quote.Only the barbarian and the monk actually investigated and handled the armor before giving it to the ranger to sell. I would guess that at his table, the DM didn't separate the players, and they all had the opportunity to hear about the gauntlets. There is no indication that the barbarian pointed them out to the ranger at any point between the time they found them and he sold them. I do this to make things simple, under the assumption that when the characters get back together they will share information. But, that benefit of not having to repeat what I've told them comes at a cost of either paying attention, or reminding each other what's important in the situation. Again, if somebody had written something down, I'd have something more to work with. If the barbarian had said, "I give the armor to the ranger, but keep the gauntlets," or "I'm giving the armor to the ranger" and then tells the ranger not to forget the gauntlets, check to see if the ring is magical, or any number of variations that indicate that they are considering them as important separately. The monk and barbarian could also have mentioned something when they sent the ranger off to sell them, and had they been paying attention during the transaction, they could have said something then. Yes, it's meta-gaming since they aren't there for the transaction, but to me it's no different than the ranger being present to hear what the barbarian and monk found, should he care to pay attention. Even if the ranger could see the gauntlets, and might have seen the ring (or might not), the differences between the gauntlets and the rest of the suit of armor may not have been obvious without close examination. At the time the ranger was selling them, he (the character) only thought it was "just a suit of armor" and had no reason to suspect anything was amiss. In addition, the player obviously didn't know they were different for whatever reason. It's very reasonable that the ranger (the character) had no idea there was anything unusual to consider in the circumstances described, nor would it be the DM's responsibility to say anything. Again, I might have allowed an additional check or two, but the DC would be different knowing that the ranger was never involved in any table discussions regarding the armor, and quite likely viewed the armor as just an "extra thing we don't need." Even the "appraisal" which I read as more of a simple question since there is no indication that he is/intends to sit down examining the armor piece by piece to determine a rough value. This is one place where the DM could have said (after the check), that generally speaking a suit of adamantine armour would be worth "x", but not being an expert, armorer, or armor merchant, you'd have to spend some time to really go over the armor to determine a more precise value. Do you want to examine it more closely?Remember, in the scenario provided, the ranger never actually looked at the armor other than as a set tied up in a bundle.My players have a character whose background is a merchant, and specifically took expertise in Investigation so he can appraise items. If that character asked the same question, I would have given a more detailed answer, including noting the reduction in price because the gauntlets don't match, but the price could be higher if the gauntlets or ring are magical. But that isn't the case here as far as I know....I also asked my group last night what they thought of the situation. The initial reaction, when I asked if they thought the DM was wrong? Mild confusion. "Wrong about what?," they asked. So as I predicted, even with further discussion, there was not even a slight consideration that the DM had done anything wrong at all. Not even the new guy who I met for the first time last night. He is a friend of a couple of the other players and they thought he would enjoy our campaign. In fact, they were suprised that anybody thought there was a problem with the scenario, and even more so that the debate continued for 45+ pages.Like so many aspects of this game, this type of thing is very table specific. Taking advantage of situations like this every once in a while is a tool the DM can use, provided that the players don't have an issue with it. The other thing that I see over and over again in discussions like this is that the importance of this one scenario takes on much greater importance in the void of a discussion than it does as a point in an ongoing campaign. The selling of the armor and the aftermath comprises a minute percentage of game time played. In the course of a game - played hours at a time, for weeks, months, or even years - there will be things that happen that the players/characters don't like. If it's a big enough deal to the players, it should be addressed. Otherwise it's just part of the game, and part of life.YMMV. What's of dire importance to one player may not even register for the others. That doesn't make it invalid. If a problem or disagreement arises it must be addressed. That doesn't mean the player(s) or the DM will get their way, of course. It might end up favoring one side of the debate or another, or some compromise or other solution might be found.In our case, if there's something that's enough of a big deal, a single player could conceivably carry veto power. But it's the entire table that will also decide if a certain situation warrants that, or the other extreme of whether perhaps playing with that particular player is the bigger issue. Usually it's some place in the middle. In this case the question would be whether addressing primarily one player's repeated objections when something doesn't go their way, and continued use of a phone during play, is worth more than sharing the game with a good friend. So far, they seem to have decided that the friendship and time spent together is more important than enforcing a No Phone rule, but not enough to change or retcon results when he complains. The reactions of the other players, to the scenario and the fallout, really answers the question originally posed for his table.The debate has many perspectives and opinions, and it's really only each of us, and each our our tables, to determine whether the DM in this case was right or wrong for the same reason. Ilbranteloth</blockquote>

Verification