Hi everybody.

Something has come up regarding buying and selling in my game.

My understanding was, per RAW to sell something you roll one's Negotiation or Streetwise against the item's rarity and then successes determine what the item is offered for, say 1 success is 25% of cost. However, I was also under the understanding that I could refuse that 25%, keep the item, and try the roll again later if I wished, same for buying something.

The problem is the interpretation of the GM around here is that once I make the roll, that's it. I have to give up the item, take the 25% and it's over. No Take it or Leave it.

Has this ever come up in games?

I treat it as take it or leave it. That's what the other person will offer you, but you don't have to take it. It makes more sense and works better, in my experience/opinion.

I think your GM is making a mistake in that if you are so stringent about those sorts of rules, it'll quickly go pear-shaped when a PC with 4 Presence and 5 Negotiation decides he wants that Gnim Dynasty vase for 5 credits, then succeeds on the roll in spite of all the Setbacks. The owner of the Gnim Dynasty vase may not be able to convince the PC to offer more, but he sure ain't gonna sell it for 5 credits.

The same kind of scenario comes up when I run D&D games. Regardless of the RPG, the skill check usually indicates the amount of time and success of the effort to try and sell an item.

Unless you roleplay each and every interaction with potential buyers, I wouldn't allow for a recheck since that's what the dice roll was meant to represent.

At least not another check in that town, planet, or wherever. To get a new check, I would say that a passage of time or change of location would need to occur.

Now if the group/character decides to go on a mini-adventure to spread rumors and create interest in the item around town, I could see allowing another skill check, but then they've gone and wasted even more time (and possibly money by buying drinks to spread rumors, etc) that the discount might not even be worth it any more.

If the player gets to the point they want to make a roll (presumably to leverage some awesome skill or talent), it should have some consequences. Otherwise, what's the point? It'd be like "I sneak up on the guard and take him down...oh, what's this, a Despair?! Well, I didn't actually do that, I'm still back in the bushes..."

If they want no risk, then just role-play the buying/selling and be done...plenty of fun to be had that way, and then everybody can walk away if they want.

If you roll, it's for keeps, imho.

17 minutes ago, whafrog said:

If the player gets to the point they want to make a roll (presumably to leverage some awesome skill or talent), it should have some consequences. Otherwise, what's the point? It'd be like "I sneak up on the guard and take him down...oh, what's this, a Despair?! Well, I didn't actually do that, I'm still back in the bushes..."

Yes it should. The consequence is that they aren't able to sell/buy the item at that location and the opportunity cost of the time. But if they can't get a good deal, they can walk away.
I would require them to be at another location (probably world), have ginned up interest for the item as @SuperWookie suggested, or wait a pretty significant amount of time.

If you mess up trying to attack the guard, that's an action you can't take back. A Negotiation check isn't an action, it's a discussion. After that discussion, you decide if you want to make the action, that is, selling the item.

The narrative effects of the roll might still stick though, depending what they are. If you roll a Despair and walk away, you might have someone coming after you to get the item for 0 credits.

21 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

A Negotiation check isn't an action, it's a discussion. After that discussion, you decide if you want to make the action, that is, selling the item.

Action/discussion, doesn't matter, it's still deciding to put something on the table. You can't put your chips on the table and take them back if you lose...of course, you CAN do it, but then the house will send everything it has after you to make an example. I'm not saying the consequences have to be immediate, but they have to exist.

Just now, whafrog said:

Action/discussion, doesn't matter, it's still deciding to put something on the table. You can't put your chips on the table and take them back if you lose...of course, you CAN do it, but then the house will send everything it has after you to make an example. I'm not saying the consequences have to be immediate, but they have to exist.

If I hold out an RPG book and say "Do you want to buy this?" And you say "Sure I'll give you 5 bucks for it." And I say "No, it'll take more than that. Maybe 30 bucks."
We negotiate, and you won't go higher than 15. I can pull it back and say "Okay, nevermind. I'm not selling it for that little."

3 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

If I hold out an RPG book and say "Do you want to buy this?" And you say "Sure I'll give you 5 bucks for it." And I say "No, it'll take more than that. Maybe 30 bucks."
We negotiate, and you won't go higher than 15. I can pull it back and say "Okay, nevermind. I'm not selling it for that little."

Yeah. It's one thing to say decide to attack sneak up on someone, roll for it, and then fail and decide I didn't attack or sneak up on them after all. It's quite another to try to buy or sell something, be given a bad deal and then be forced against the player's will to accept that deal and give up what they were trying to sell or be forced to take what they were trying to buy. In a Negotiation either party can decide to back out at any time, in a battle you're either actively trying to shoot somebody or you aren't and thus the very attempt equals committing to the action.

6 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

If I hold out an RPG book and say "Do you want to buy this?" And you say "Sure I'll give you 5 bucks for it." And I say "No, it'll take more than that. Maybe 30 bucks."
We negotiate, and you won't go higher than 15. I can pull it back and say "Okay, nevermind. I'm not selling it for that little."

That's not the same at all. That's just two people negotiating, and you don't need a roll for such a tepid interaction. A roll implies something at stake. If there isn't anything at stake, don't roll, otherwise you haven't accounted for what consequences failure/threat/despair brings. It also means you haven't accounted for what the NPC wants out of the deal...this is the sort of bone-dry story-less interaction that serves nobody's interest, neither in nor out of game.

A more role-play-y example might be, you hold out an RPG book and say "Do you want to buy this?" And I say "Sure, I'll give you 5 bucks for it, I know the owner and he owes me." And you say, "No, I know the owner, he won't let this go for less than $30." And I stomp my foot and scream "I want to speak to the manager!" Then I roll and fail, and you say "I AM the manager, and you're a Karen, and get the * out of my store." Also, I got a Despair because while screaming I was waving my hands around and accidentally knocked over the dice display and now there are dice everywhere . So now I'm banned.

That's what rolling is for. I sorta can't believe this needs explaining.

10 minutes ago, whafrog said:

That's not the same at all. That's just two people negotiating, and you don't need a roll for such a tepid interaction. A roll implies something at stake. If there isn't anything at stake, don't roll, otherwise you haven't accounted for what consequences failure/threat/despair brings. It also means you haven't accounted for what the NPC wants out of the deal...this is the sort of bone-dry story-less interaction that serves nobody's interest, neither in nor out of game.

A more role-play-y example might be, you hold out an RPG book and say "Do you want to buy this?" And I say "Sure, I'll give you 5 bucks for it, I know the owner and he owes me." And you say, "No, I know the owner, he won't let this go for less than $30." And I stomp my foot and scream "I want to speak to the manager!" Then I roll and fail, and you say "I AM the manager, and you're a Karen, and get the * out of my store." Also, I got a Despair because while screaming I was waving my hands around and accidentally knocked over the dice display and now there are dice everywhere . So now I'm banned.

That's what rolling is for. I sorta can't believe this needs explaining.

O_o

A Negotiation check is made when you want to sell an item, in order to determine how much you are able to sell it for. I have don't know what you're going on about, and I'm not sure where the disconnect is. Best I can do is try to further articulate my position.

A Negotiation check is an abstract way of resolving such a tepid negotiation. You roll, you interpret the results, you decide if you want to part with it or not. If you succeed, you find someone willing to buy the item ("Hey you want to buy this?" "Sure, I'll give you five bucks"), then the margin of success is how much you are able to convince the other person to pay ("No, this is worth at least 30." "I'm not paying more than 15."), and then you decide if you are willing to accept that price or not. Both buying and selling.

If you roll a bunch of Threat or a Despair, then yes, those results would still count. No one is saying they wouldn't. You might still get banned from that store.

With something this simple, what the NPC wants out of it is pretty cut and dried. "I want the book more than I want X many dollars." While the PC wants Y many dollars more than he wants the book. Then he has to decide if X is an acceptable amount.

9 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

With something this simple, what the NPC wants out of it is pretty cut and dried. "I want the book more than I want X many dollars." While the PC wants Y many dollars more than he wants the book. Then he has to decide if X is an acceptable amount.

Sure. My only point then is "why roll?" Personally I'd also back up and ask why I'm spending my precious roleplaying time on something so mundane, but...different strokes I guess.

7 minutes ago, whafrog said:

Sure. My only point then is "why roll?" Personally I'd also back up and ask why I'm spending my precious roleplaying time on something so mundane, but...different strokes I guess.

It wouldn't be roleplaying. My example was intended as a real-world example of why I say you should be allowed to walk away from a negotiation.

The reason to roll is to determine how much you get for the item, or how much the item costs. It's just a mechanical thing.

Here's my take on it.

Fail the roll and don't want to sell it for the low price?

Fine, but you can't try to sell it again on that planet.
And, maybe, next time you try to sell something there you get a disadvantage due to people not liking you pulling out of deals, etc.

In SW, I treat planets like I treat towns in fantasy games.
Yes, if you want to sell something in town, you roll... that roll represents looking for a sale in the entire town. Fail the roll and don't want to sell? Then you can't sell in that town. You'll have to go to another town.
In SW, I'd treat that as the whole planet instead.

You can always walk away from the deal, but there should be consequences. Depending on who you're dealing with, that can be anything from a setback dice next time you try to deal on that planet, to getting a hit put on you from a vicious Hutt that thinks you've tried to cheat them out of a good thing...

(Also, remember that there's fuel costs, so even if you get a better deal on another planet, you might have lost that profit in fuel costs for going there in the first place)

But never, never, let your players just roam from place to place to find the best deal without any consequences to their actions.

GM: "So, you're not pleased with the deal you just negotiated?"
PC: "No, I think my junk is worth more than that!"
GM: "Might be, but during the course of the negotiation this was the price the two parties arrived at."
PC: "But I don't wanna!"
GM: "Ok, flip a Destiny Point and you don't have to" *GM rubs hands evilly*

I'm more on the "rolling makes it binding" side.

They way I look at it is that yes, the seller comes in with certain expectations, but if they lose the roll that indicates they were out talked, or otherwise convinced that they got the appropriate price . "Hmm, that book has a worn cover, and, ah yes, its the second edition that has a number of errors in the text. Look, I have 3 other, in better condition, for sale right now at $7, so $5 is not just my best price, it is the best price you are going to get." By winning the roll the buyer convinced the seller that their facts were right. If the seller wins then they convinced the buyer that their facts were right, "Ah, but you overlook that it is autographed by Guy Googax, and there are some notes that he made in the margins"

If the character can walk away then what is the point of any of the social skills?

6 minutes ago, RickInVA said:

I'm more on the "rolling makes it binding" side.

They way I look at it is that yes, the seller comes in with certain expectations, but if they lose the roll that indicates they were out talked, or otherwise convinced that they got the appropriate price . "Hmm, that book has a worn cover, and, ah yes, its the second edition that has a number of errors in the text. Look, I have 3 other, in better condition, for sale right now at $7, so $5 is not just my best price, it is the best price you are going to get." By winning the roll the buyer convinced the seller that their facts were right. If the seller wins then they convinced the buyer that their facts were right, "Ah, but you overlook that it is autographed by Guy Googax, and there are some notes that he made in the margins"

That's an interesting point, but I would say that might also require Deception. What you're describing there would be for a more major exchange and might require several rolls. If the NPC succeeds on a Deception check, the result is going to be much more binding because the PC thinks that what the NPC is saying is true.

Doesn't change my mind, but it does make me think. My main concern with the Social Skills is that if you make them too binding, it becomes too constraining on both the NPCs and the PCs. I've also never liked the "I charm the barmaid" trope, or the "I convince the king to abdicate because I have +500 on my Convince skill" sort of thing. No matter how good your roll is, a character shouldn't (usually, there could be some exceptions) act completely out of character.

When a Social Skills like Charm, Leadership, Coercion, and sometimes others affects a PC, I generally try to treat it as affecting how the PC feels about the character rather than as an indisputable command.

This also comes to the question of "can you do anything with a nat 20?"

I've always grappled quite heavily with the Social Skills and proper implementation thereof. Coercion and Deception are the easiest as they are the most adversarial, and Negotiation (how I use it most of the time anyway) is mostly just number manipulation.

1 hour ago, RickInVA said:

I'm more on the "rolling makes it binding" side.

They way I look at it is that yes, the seller comes in with certain expectations, but if they lose the roll that indicates they were out talked, or otherwise convinced that they got the appropriate price . "Hmm, that book has a worn cover, and, ah yes, its the second edition that has a number of errors in the text. Look, I have 3 other, in better condition, for sale right now at $7, so $5 is not just my best price, it is the best price you are going to get." By winning the roll the buyer convinced the seller that their facts were right. If the seller wins then they convinced the buyer that their facts were right, "Ah, but you overlook that it is autographed by Guy Googax, and there are some notes that he made in the margins"

If the character can walk away then what is the point of any of the social skills?

2 hours ago, RickInVA said:

I'm more on the "rolling makes it binding" side.

They way I look at it is that yes, the seller comes in with certain expectations, but if they lose the roll that indicates they were out talked, or otherwise convinced that they got the appropriate price . "Hmm, that book has a worn cover, and, ah yes, its the second edition that has a number of errors in the text. Look, I have 3 other, in better condition, for sale right now at $7, so $5 is not just my best price, it is the best price you are going to get." By winning the roll the buyer convinced the seller that their facts were right. If the seller wins then they convinced the buyer that their facts were right, "Ah, but you overlook that it is autographed by Guy Googax, and there are some notes that he made in the margins"

If the character can walk away then what is the point of any of the social skills?

I think this is a really good example.

I like the simplicity and elegance in FFG's design of Negotiation and Streetwise. Negotiation/streetwise can encompass narratively the idea behind the other social checks of charm, leadership, coercion and deception all in just one roll. The idea behind having to use a negotiation/streetwise roll and then having additional social checks, like deception check to lie about the value of the item can start to bog down the system.

Narratively, streetwise makes sense to me as lending itself more to 'negative' social checks like deception and coercion. An example would be an illegal weapons dealer. On the other hand, negotiation would lend itself more to 'positive' social checks like charm and leadership. An example is a corporate sales representative. Of course, you could have a flattering mob boss selling you weapons that has high charm and leadership using his streetwise skills or a corporate hitman with high deception and coercion trying to aggressively use his negotiation skills but this just further illustrates that it's more of a narrative flavor the GM can use if they wish to explain the dice outcome. Whereas the mechanics behind the rolling it all into one negotiation/streetwise skill check keeps it simple and keep things moving forward.

I also like the idea for this when doing opposed checks between players that both agree to do a trade. The narrative dice can allow for the players to handle how to roleplay out how their characters would handle a negotiation/streetwise outcome, keep things more objective, without slowing down the game for the other players not involved in the deal.

A thing that can be done is remember that most sellers have a minimum they are willing to sell an item for, and most buyers have a finite budget they are willing to spend. Realistically, a Negotiation check should never push either characters beyond these limits, except maybe in the realm of Triumph/Despair. So if you have an item worth 450, want to sell it for 900, and have a buyer who wants to spend no more 800, then the Negotiation check is to determine a compromise somewhere in that range, not to force the seller to sell for 45, or for the buyer to pay 10,000.

6 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

That's an interesting point, but I would say that might also require Deception. What you're describing there would be for a more major exchange and might require several rolls. If the NPC succeeds on a Deception check, the result is going to be much more binding because the PC thinks that what the NPC is saying is true.

Doesn't change my mind, but it does make me think. My main concern with the Social Skills is that if you make them too binding, it becomes too constraining on both the NPCs and the PCs. I've also never liked the "I charm the barmaid" trope, or the "I convince the king to abdicate because I have +500 on my Convince skill" sort of thing. No matter how good your roll is, a character shouldn't (usually, there could be some exceptions) act completely out of character.

When a Social Skills like Charm, Leadership, Coercion, and sometimes others affects a PC, I generally try to treat it as affecting how the PC feels about the character rather than as an indisputable command.

This also comes to the question of "can you do anything with a nat 20?"

I've always grappled quite heavily with the Social Skills and proper implementation thereof. Coercion and Deception are the easiest as they are the most adversarial, and Negotiation (how I use it most of the time anyway) is mostly just number manipulation.

I think many real negotiations have an element of deception built into them Buying or selling, both sides are likely to over and under state various attributes, applications, suitability, durability, etc. I feel that is encompassed by the Negotiation skill. Now if you want to convince a buyer that this isn't just anyone's cloak, that this cloak belonged to the General Grievous (and it wasn't) then that is clearly, to me, Deception.

2 hours ago, Swordbreaker said:

A thing that can be done is remember that most sellers have a minimum they are willing to sell an item for, and most buyers have a finite budget they are willing to spend. Realistically, a Negotiation check should never push either characters beyond these limits, except maybe in the realm of Triumph/Despair. So if you have an item worth 450, want to sell it for 900, and have a buyer who wants to spend no more 800, then the Negotiation check is to determine a compromise somewhere in that range, not to force the seller to sell for 45, or for the buyer to pay 10,000.

I agree. I would fully support a PC taking an item to a merchant and saying "I'm looking to sell. 250 credits or I leave." My difference here is that the PC doesn't want to roll a negotiation. Now I might twist that a bit sometimes, and feel that the merchant might want to take advantage of my seller, and use his (the buyer's) Negotiation (or possibly Deception) to get it for less. In that case I might tell the PC, "He starts talking about the lack of polish on the boots, what do you do?" If the PC stays then a Binding Negotiation opposed by the PCs Discipline might occur. Or the PC might say that she leaves the store, no harm no foul.

Does no one go to buy a car and buy a more expensive one than they intended? Does no one take less for their trade in than they wanted to? Some do. Some don't. Is there nothing you have ever bought (not many of us are in the selling trade) and six days later you don't know what you were thinking?

I like the idea that sometimes the PC can end up on the fuzzy end of the negotiation lolly pop and leave the store going, "Why did I buy this antique Geonosian vuvuzela?"

6 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Doesn't change my mind, but it does make me think. My main concern with the Social Skills is that if you make them too binding, it becomes too constraining on both the NPCs and the PCs. I've also never liked the "I charm the barmaid" trope, or the "I convince the king to abdicate because I have +500 on my Convince skill" sort of thing. No matter how good your roll is, a character shouldn't (usually, there could be some exceptions) act completely out of character.

When a Social Skills like Charm, Leadership, Coercion, and sometimes others affects a PC, I generally try to treat it as affecting how the PC feels about the character rather than as an indisputable command.

This also comes to the question of "can you do anything with a nat 20?"

I've always grappled quite heavily with the Social Skills and proper implementation thereof. Coercion and Deception are the easiest as they are the most adversarial, and Negotiation (how I use it most of the time anyway) is mostly just number manipulation.

Specifically to this, I agree that there are definite limits. It should take a lot to get someone to act directly against their interests. BUT, if a PC is rolling 5Y to convince the King to abdicate, against 5R 5K for instance, and the result is 5 Triumphs vs. nothing, then I'm going to have the King abdicate. That doesn't prevent him from regretting it an hour later and calling on "his" army to put him back in power!

There should be something, however, detrimental to the PC for failing certain checks. If the NPC does successfully use his charm on the PC, and you tell the player "Your character believes that this guy is the real deal, he's on your side", there should be some consequence to the player saying, "I don't care, I shoot him anyway."

I feel the game is already biased in the PCs favor (which I like) so there need to be offsetting things here and there.

Remember that it's a Narrative Game, so you have to play the narrative, not the character (it's not a simulation). The roll says you take the deal (assuming you don't outright fail to find a buyer), the results tell the narrative of how the deal goes down including how much/little you get for selling your crap . Don't like that? Don't play a Narrative Game.

Wow, I'm really glad I don't game with some of you.

This apparently is one of those things that should be discussed before anyone sits down at the table to play. I'd be right p1ssed if the act of negotiating turned into "Oh, you rolled like crap.....you sell Priceless Artifact for 30 credits and half a stick of space gum. Too bad, should have rolled better".

I look at it as, Negotiation is the act of reaching a certain price and/or conditions, but it's only binding once both parties agree.

If you head down to the local car dealership and haggle with the salescreep for an hour and a half, it doesn't mean anything until you actually sign the contract. Same if I walk into a pawn shop with, say, a snowblower and start haggling with the mutt running the place. We can go back and forth for a while, but if he won't give me a price or trade that I like, I walk. Period, full stop, end of.

I wonder how much those saying that the roll binds you to whatever price would like it if that happened to them when negotiating a job? Oh, you rolled a failure, with some threat? Guess what, you're going to break a Hutt *AND* his entire syndicate out of T.H.E. toughest triple-max security prison the Empire has.

And you're doing it for a handful of hard candies, one hard-used boot with a foot still in it, and six loaves of bread.

Something tells me no one would agree to that.

13 minutes ago, the mercenary said:

Wow, I'm really glad I don't game with some of you.

The feeling is mutual. Now we're all happy here.