A player posed this question to me today. Can the Master Merchant Talent "Spend 2 strain to buy or sell goods for 25% less or more" be used when buying ships, since they are not sure if a ship counts as 'goods'?

I am divided on the issue, it sounds okay from a purely RAW standpoint...however, we are talking MASSIVE savings for nothing more than a simple talent, to put in perspective, that's 25,000 off a stock YT-1300, bring its price down to 75,000.

Furthermore, the talent itself sounds fairly abusable by the group, how do GMs avoid everyone of their NPCs being conned by these penny scrimping scrooges?

I can't find anything RAW that would limit it either, but here is my opinion:

• Since the talent allows affects "buying or selling items" (p. 138), I would limit it to the Chapter V: Gear and Equipment.
• I would allow it to affect the purchase of attachments since they are "physical items that attach to or are installed in items..." (p. 187)
• I would not allow it to affect modifications to attachments since I consider these services as "additional modifications that a skilled mechanic can make to the attachment" (p. 187) and should be the purview of the Gearhead talent.

Edit: added page references

And now an opposing viewpoint: yes, let them. The whole point of the Entrepreneur (and Quartermaster) tree is to become a godddamed business Tyrannosaurs. By the point that they are able to use that talent, they've already sunk a ton of points and time into moving their character that direction. Why not let them enjoy the fruits of their labors and be an awesome wheeler and dealer.

Besides, if they're throwing around that kind of scratch anyway, is 25K going to make that huge an impact on the economy? Also, assets like ships can easily be . . . ahem, liquidated at GM whim,

So no, let them have their fun.

(Also, if it helps sway your decision, my businessman owns a bar, and when I asked, the devs said that there was no reason that Wheel and Deal wouldn't boost the monthly dividend from the bar. No reason that the same wouldn't apply here. . . .)

I don't think it's designed to apply to ships, but with decent roleplaying, I'd probably allow it, pretty much for the same reasons that Desslock said.

And ultimately, I as the GM control the economy anyway, so why be arbitrary with my arbitrariness? Just too much arbitration for my tastes when in doubt, it's "Yes! And, here's your difficulty."

You can let them save as much as they like. Remember the "yes and..." principle. You don't want to get stuck in an adversarial rut of trying to counter their advancements, talents, skills, etc.

On the other hand, you don't want them saving enough expenses and making enough profit that they feel rich. So look at perfectly legitimate ways to reduce the base gains and boost the base costs of what they're looking at.

That YT-1300? Well, sure, a "base" model costs 100,000cr, but the one on the lot they're looking at has some "special modifications" (nothing noteworthy, maybe just a paint job, custom lights, and an extra comfy mattress in the main cabin) that boost the base price to 132,000cr.

Then when they go to sell those blaster carbines and the e-web repeater they snagged off the stormtrooper squad, set the base price ridiculously low because the merchant knows that selling Imperial Army goods is risky, and he's hip-dip in carbines already since sales have been slow this quarter.

The players will feel like their skills and talents matter, but it doesn't have to get out of balance. Of course you need to let them have a great deal now and then so they feel like that path is worthwhile. And you need to really pinch them when it doesn't apply so they're grateful for the little bit it helps when it works.

Besides, if they're throwing around that kind of scratch anyway, is 25K going to make that huge an impact on the economy? Also, assets like ships can easily be . . . ahem, liquidated at GM whim,

\

Liquidating assets, especially huge ones like ships at a whim sounds like a very bad idea. It sounds like the kind of thing which gives players legitimate cause to see the GM as an adversary.

Besides, if they're throwing around that kind of scratch anyway, is 25K going to make that huge an impact on the economy? Also, assets like ships can easily be . . . ahem, liquidated at GM whim,

\

Liquidating assets, especially huge ones like ships at a whim sounds like a very bad idea. It sounds like the kind of thing which gives players legitimate cause to see the GM as an adversary.

Totally agree on this.

2 times I had to have my Players lose their ship, both times affected their play MONTHS later. unless you want to do major impact to a story don't take or destroy a ship on a whim... ever.

I can see how it could be very destabilizing... although if a PC upsets a market enough I'm sure the GM could come up with a nemesis upset by the new competition.

I had another groups ship captured during the Jewel of Yavin storyline, they opted to steal another ship, which was one they wanted anyway. I basically did it for 'dramatic purpose' more than anything, they were not resistant in any way and they didn't really put any money into the ship.

This week with the group that asked me the question, they were engaged in a heavy dogfight escape from a pirate asteroid base against an ugly, V-Wings and an Upgraded Z-95. Their ship got critted 4 times and was over its hull trauma threshold. I didn't destroy it though and they managed to just get away and escape. The session basically became them landing and trying to essentially fix this ship, which is where the merchant came in, they had to trade some cargo for repairs.

The did say though, that it was the best session they ever had and in the session I even did something and my player leaned over my screen and said "You're a very fair GM." So needless to say I was very pleased with this. It also served a purpose...to bleed them of their well earned credits, because living on the Edge is tough. That was the point that I drove home.

As long as they enjoy themselves I have no qualm and I don't see them as my enemy...but I do have to do some things to push the development of the adventure and the group onwards.

There you have it. You control things like upkeep, repair costs, costs of living, and all the hostile elements in the universe who want to rob you of your hard-earned profits. You don't have to outright take away their stuff - in this economy, they might consider selling it just to pay their bills.

And since those are variables you control, you could easily crank them up by 25% - now the group needs the Master Merchant more than ever just to break even... which is exactly the adversarial mindset the other posters above warned you about, but yeah, if you're concerned that this talent could wreck your campaign, you have that option.

Of course, you should never ever appear to react to the talent this way. Costs should always be spread out over the different encounters, and not directly after the player announces his talents. Don't make him feel useless.

You could it two ways - you could be subtle about it, or you could tie it to the malevolent influence of a cartel under control of the Master Merchant's nemesis, who actively wants to ruin him.