Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6851089" data-attributes="member: 42582">It seems to me that the ranger was present when the armour was "bundled up" - having been revived following the sword episode prior to the bundling taking place.The ranger was also present and conscious during some of the fight, during which he might have seen the gauntlets and ring also.To the extent that the player of the ranger did not pay full attention to the gauntlets and ring description - which is not at all clear from what the GM says - it seems to me that it could easily be because the player was focused on other elements of the fiction that the GM had introduced, such as the children and the sword. In the OP the GM presents the players' focus on the sword as if it was some sort of failing on their part, whereas in the fuller post we learn that the reason for the attention to the sword was in part due to the fact that it had an associated NPC (the "ghost guardian") and that interacting with it led to a further relatively serious combat.As I said, the GM clearly identifies the ranger as being present and conscious (having just been "woken up" ie revived from unconsciousness) when the barbarian bundles the armour and gauntlets/ring together. The GM has already stated that the gauntlets and ring have runes indicating (as per the convention in his game) that they might be magical. This is the same cue that the NPC purchaser later relies upon.It seems to me that the only reason the GM doesn't mention to the player of the ranger, at the time the bundling takes place, that the stuff the barbarian is bundling includes an enruned gauntlet and ring is because the GM is assuming that the player of the ranger is already aware of this from the prior description. (Eg there is no indication that the player of the ranger had been made to leave the room while the barbarian and monk players were playing out their initial inspection of the armour etc after the defeat of the "big boss").It is not clear whether or not the GM mentioned the runes on the ring and gauntlet to the players while that fight was being resolved. I get the sense that it wasn't, but I also get the sense that this is not because the PCs couldn't see it, but rather because the GM was sticking to a relatively established D&D practice of not describing "the loot" until the players have their PCs check it out after the fight is resolved.Finally, there remains the unanswered question: how was the NPC able to notice the magic ring while the ranger wasn't? You state that, to the ranger, the gauntlets and the ring aren't visible. Why not? Upthread,  [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] and other posters have conjectured about "the angle of the bag" or the presence of a barrier on a counter/table. You talk about the possible need for a Sleight of Hand check on the part of the NPC. But this is all conjecture - none of it is indicated by the GM.To me it seems fairly clear that the GM was taking for granted that the ranger was aware of the ring, but because the player of the ranger expressed no concern about it being sold, and because the other players didn't intervene to say to the player of the ranger "Hey, don't sell the ring and gauntlets too!", the ranger was deemed to willingly be selling them also. That is to say, I don't think the GM is making any sort of subtle adjudication of the fiction. I think the GM is making an adjudication of the player's action declaration, and is deeming the phrase the whole armour set to mean something that the player does not intend that it mean. It's not about the fiction, it's about the metagame and the standards around action declaration. As far as the fiction is concerned, it produces a very bizarre result: not that the ranger was absent-minded at all, but rather that the ranger chose to sell something he knew he didn't want to sell!That's why the analogy, upthread, of an action declaration to climb a tree being interpreted as a declaration to climb a fiery tree is apt.Another similar example would be if the GM had mentioned a pit; player goes on and the player has lost track of the precise relationship between his/her PC and the pit; the player then declares, for some reason somewhat unrelated to the pit "I step to the left" and the GM says "OK, you fall down the pit." In the fiction that makes no sense - the PC would see the pit and know not to step into it - but the player is being held to a standard of precision in action resolution that is not based on any view of the fiction, but is more like a D&D variant of touch-move chess.On the matter of "interesting game-play" - as I said upthread, unless the campaign was on the verge of coming to an end but for this event, that is moot. Interesting game play was going to happen anyway, and I don't see how it becomes more interesting because the players have lost their loot and now have a new NPC enemy.On the matter of deception: I've got no objection to NPCs deceiving the PCs. That's not what's at stake here, though - what's at stake here is a metagame matter, of how the GM handled a player's action declaration.On the precise wording, "touch-move" style: it's not my favourite approach to D&D. It is prone - as here - to produce arguments over what is meant by a phrase like "I sell the armour set". If, as here, that phrase is intended by the player to have a different meaning from how the GM takes it, there are questions around whose interpretation prevails - and they cannot be resolved by friendly conversation, because the whole point of the "precision wording" approach is that the players don't get to have a friendly conversation with the GM about their wording because they are bound by their precise wording even if the result is unfriendly to them!I think that those sorts of arguments are especially likely to result if this style of action declaration is enforced haphazardly or ad hoc depending on the mood of the GM. For instance, if the player of the ranger is paying little attention to the details of the barbarian's action declaration about bundling because that player assumes it will all be sorted out later, and that the action declaration on bundling is simply a standard move designed to ensure that, in the fiction, the PCs aren't deemed to have left the items behind, then the player of the ranger may not make a big deal of later inspecting the bundle and separating out the different components, because it is assumed that - in the fiction - the PCs are quite capable of doing this, and so don't need to actually establish it via action declaration (much as they may deal with their eating and drinking in the city simply by knocking of gold pieces, but not actually having to declare that they chew and swallow).I think that when the precision style produces events which make little or no sense in the fiction - as here, either (i) that the ranger can't see what the NPC purchaser can see, despite there being no reason established in the fiction as to why that is so (eg no ring of X-ray vision, no Sleight of Hands check, no description of funny table/counter designs, no description by the player of his PC wandering the shop, etc), or (ii) that the ranger could see the ring and gauntlets but sold them anyway - then it is even more prone to produce arguments. And for good reason - the players can legitimately say "That makes no sense". (Again, I contrast the case where the player sells a job lot, having forgotten what's in it - that does make sense in the fiction, because neither PC nor NPC can see what's in there in any detail, and the PC has just been forgetful as the player has.)Was the GM in the wrong? I think that the GM mishandled the situation, by imposing a standard for action declaration that does not seem to have been the table norm, by not running other parts of the game in accordance with that standard (eg sometimes treating the PCs as a gestalt, as by not describing the gauntlets and ring a second time when the barbarian bundled them up in front of the ranger; but sometimes treating the PCs as individuals, as when the ranger is deemed to be selling the gauntlets and ring even though other players believe that "the armour set" excludes those particular items), and by imposing that standard in a way that undermines the coherence of the fiction, when other parts of the game seem to prioritise fiction over metagame (eg the barbarian's "bundling up" seems most likely to have been declared because there is a table norm that loot isn't taken unless, in fiction, a "move" is made that explains how it has been taken).Whether or not that is wrong, I think it's fairly poor GMing. And, in this case, fairly clearly motivated by a degree of vindictiveness or at least irritation. For reasons that are unclear to me, the GM seems upset because at least some of the players paid more attention to the children and the haunted sword than they did to the gauntlets and ring. Why that should be regarded as bad play, I don't know.</blockquote>

Verification